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

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Richard:

The documents already include those labels.  Perhaps the IANA registry could be created when then next hybrid KEM is specified.

Russ

> On Jul 10, 2026, at 9:12 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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]