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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sat, 11 July 2026 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: cfrg@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098431150CDFE for <cfrg@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 06:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1783775446; bh=P97GkH1x9g+wMLokozm6O7cygY0b28F/qVjLg0BDlLU=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=qUJ16zH2v76YOl3zAm3ikPL7hQcCTmV2us65If2tV3ORxa9u99Qph8TgeaLJ6SNJ+ oOAcjMtGnCyLvUygRLFRBw6gIoo2iWwjrSQOn3AOHBwVNQkeNl8lJc8LSElD58DUni AbDW79APQ8EDxtxQw5q8mRrY5sPikh8GDUtt5Ews=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vigilsec.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NVyF-QmR6M2N for <cfrg@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69D4B1150CDEE for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 461A41A14A5; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 09:10:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [72.138.80.142]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0DFC1A1886; Sat, 11 Jul 2026 09:10:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <192894F0-94BF-428B-ABD5-AE36BC14AEED@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_972F44E3-C820-4FA5-8DE2-BCD32A54952A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.600.51.1.1\))
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2026 09:10:32 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgTDa_AXnbx9XOcNkPcnvgLVghrjsPrq3F0ZNP88rJGO4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
References: <CAOjisRyRbkNif7mGD5TcoEcUsmbfeKE_wVHq+JH8VMySLcC47g@mail.gmail.com> <69214A81-16EB-4A77-9179-E21E06AD23A5@vigilsec.com> <CAL02cgRZVMjkrPKe4N71kArNa3FedbCXpTe4YfA_UZ0d9navPw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgTDa_AXnbx9XOcNkPcnvgLVghrjsPrq3F0ZNP88rJGO4A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.600.51.1.1)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vigilsec.com; h=from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=pair-202402141609; bh=8IErvwNwytVVH9C5bOOzQj2k2eSyiqFL6FeOBhtc/Ho=; b=JP7WkTy/Lg/Q/tT0C0ZNn4JEPeVIORclCQdfYQ4b9N+SLMraM2lp8VilnrDbbQZ1GPYPedcWkWsdXNv1Yb5/6YrbqClwTmOLUW2DXFy6Z21GJ6OyWF/D/RQGKtyB4u6eoJmj8gbH3pJ/1Epu/dvlL/c/Rla6ReQxks7Xj5a0Q5Eq1xjAx5F4YRFdpuiUP1hlmHy+yYQw2T8do/Cu50OQGspdB5iCf7rWJcj65fQZLZ0hbq176uBNTpkLUvsA60sAXKbLCEYBYhg0NIEup/YRqztxC+oAkM1rjw5FBh7gxKsO2joe7gpGYlK5Ue8IUP/hql8hY6DEk0TL2fHc6XDUNw==
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09
Message-ID-Hash: ZWOBB4QFKVQTBOSV2PFAJFO22CSTVIDK
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZWOBB4QFKVQTBOSV2PFAJFO22CSTVIDK
X-MailFrom: housley@vigilsec.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cfrg.irtf.org-0; header-match-cfrg.irtf.org-1; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Nick Sullivan <nicholas.sullivan@gmail.com>, CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>, "cfrg-chairs@ietf.org" <cfrg-chairs@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [CFRG] Re: RG Last Call on draft-irtf-cfrg-hybrid-kems-12 and draft-irtf-cfrg-concrete-hybrid-kems-04
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/zPgNtkKV8Y9BIvxzPMix91ASQmY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cfrg-owner@irtf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cfrg-join@irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cfrg-leave@irtf.org>

Richard:

I did not recall that question being asked.  I withdraw my issue.

Russ

> On Jul 10, 2026, at 10:41 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> 
> 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 <rlb@ipv.sx <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>> 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 <housley@vigilsec.com <mailto:housley@vigilsec.com>> 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 <nicholas.sullivan@gmail.com <mailto:nicholas.sullivan@gmail.com>> 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 -- cfrg@irtf.org <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to cfrg-leave@irtf.org <mailto:cfrg-leave@irtf.org>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CFRG mailing list -- cfrg@irtf.org <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to cfrg-leave@irtf.org <mailto:cfrg-leave@irtf.org>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list -- cfrg@irtf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to cfrg-leave@irtf.org