[CFRG] Re: Per-KEM security considerations: drafts received, and a two week comment period

[Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]>]

박종환_교수_컴퓨터과학전공 <[e-mail]> writes:

> Regarding Simon's suggestion:
>
> "But keep it fairly basic. I see no reason to hold a competition or
> excluding some well-known KEMs, but instead include discussion of all the
> KEMs with at least some notability..."
>
> I respectfully disagree with using "notability" as a criterion for deciding
> which KEMs should be discussed. It is not clear to me what objective
> standard "notability" refers to. For example, NTRU+ was not included in the
> list, despite offering highly competitive performance. In particular, NTRU+
> currently achieves the fastest performances among the submitted KEMs at
> comparable security levels. I therefore believe that objective technical
> characteristics, rather than perceived notability, should guide the scope
> of any comparative discussion.

You are right -- the word "notability" probably didn't express what I
intended.  Or maybe you are just humble, as I would consider NTRU+
notable and suitable for inclusion into my list of KEMs that I believe
are relevant for a CFRG KEM Considerations document (sorry for not
mentioning it explicitly).  Perhaps "well-defined from an engineering
point of view" was the term I was looking for.

/Simon