[CFRG] Re: RG Last Call on draft-irtf-cfrg-hybrid-kems-12 and draft-irtf-cfrg-concrete-hybrid-kems-04

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Also: This question was explicitly put to the RG in a virtual interim last
September, and the feedback was to keep the registry:

https://youtu.be/6zeqlZjrHRE?t=4442

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 3:12 PM Richard Barnes <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Russ,
>
> I respectfully disagree.  The construction requires a set of suffix-free
> labels for security, and the best technology we have to create such a set
> is an IANA registry.  Between draft-irtf-cfrg-concrete-hybrid-kems
> and draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-kem, there are more than a dozen variants
> currently being defined, so the need is already here.
>
> BTW, the draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-kem author team should update their
> IANA considerations to register their labels.
>
> --Richard
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 4:47 AM Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I do not think the IANA registry is needed.  At this point, there seems to
>> be a lot of acceptance of draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-kem.  Thus, It
>> seems unlikely that more combinations will be specified that require new
>> labels to be registered.  Perhaps a registry can be set up in the future
>> when new labels are actually needed.
>>
>> Russ
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2026, at 6:24 AM, Nick Sullivan <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear CFRG,
>>
>> This message starts a two-week RG Last Call on two related documents. The
>> last
>> call ends on Wednesday July 22, 2026:
>>
>>   Hybrid PQ/T Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (generic constructions)
>>   draft-irtf-cfrg-hybrid-kems-12
>>   https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-cfrg-hybrid-kems-12.html
>>
>>   Concrete Hybrid PQ/T Key Encapsulation Mechanisms
>>   draft-irtf-cfrg-concrete-hybrid-kems-04
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-irtf-cfrg-concrete-hybrid-kems-04.html
>>
>> Both are intended as Informational RFCs. Please reply on-list with your
>> position
>> on each document: ready to publish as-is, ready with specific changes, or
>> not
>> ready, together with the technical reasons. This feedback will help the
>> chairs
>> judge whether the documents are ready for IRSG review and publication.
>>
>> The scope and approach of this work were settled when the group adopted
>> it well
>> over a year ago, and both drafts have developed on the list in the open
>> since
>> then. This last call is about whether the text is technically correct and
>> complete, so please ground any objection in a specific problem with the
>> documents. Detailed comments are best filed as issues on the repositories
>> (https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-hybrid-kems,
>> https://github.com/cfrg/draft-irtf-cfrg-concrete-hybrid-kems) positions
>> belong
>> here on the list.
>>
>> Both documents were reviewed by the CFRG Crypto Review Panel ahead of
>> this last
>> call. The reviews are on the CFRG and crypto-panel lists:
>>
>>   Thomas Pornin (NCC Group), 3 June 2026, reviewed the generic framework
>> with a
>>   focus on the constructions and reductions, and concluded that it
>> describes a
>>   secure construction, with editorial and technical comments now
>> reflected in -12.
>>
>>   Virendra Kumar (Qualcomm), 8 June 2026, reviewed the generic framework
>> for
>>   clarity, with notational comments now reflected in -12.
>>
>>   Russ Housley (Vigil Security), 2 June 2026, reviewed both drafts and
>> found the
>>   constructions and instantiations as specified.
>>
>> The current revisions incorporate changes proposed by the panel's
>> comments.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Nick, for the CFRG chairs
>> _______________________________________________
>> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>>
>