[Gen-art] draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-kem-01 ietf last call Genart review

[Elwyn Davies via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-kem
Title: Composite ML-KEM for use in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-kem-01
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2026-09-10
IETF LC End Date: 2026-08-18
IESG Telechat date: 2026-09-17

Summary: Ready with a couple of nits. Apologies for the very late delivery of
this review. This was mainly caused by my somehow getting diverted onto
reviewing draft-ietf-lanmps-pq-composite-kem-21 to which this draft is
intimately related.  This turned out to be much more challenging and I only
realized my error when I tried to submit my review and in the process seriously
upset Cloudfare.

We now have three options for the Encap(s(ulate)) and Decap(s(ulate)) between
the two Composite MLKEM drafts and RFC 9180.  Time for some agreement!

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
None

Nits/editorial comments:

Abstract and s1:  Need to expand ML-KEM in 'combinations of MLKEM' in the
abstract and  in 'which combine ML-KEM' in s1.

s1.3, Definition of Encapsulate(ek):  The function name used
in draft-ietf-lamps-pq-compsite-kem-21 is Encaps (there has been discussion as
to whether Encap as used in RFC 9180 woulld be more appropriate).

s1.3, Definition of Decapsulate(dk, c):  The function name used
in draft-ietf-lamps-pq-compsite-kem-21 is Decaps (there has been discussion as
to whether Decap as used in RFC 9180 woulld be more appropriate).