[jose] Re: Interest to align PQC KEM for JOSE or COSE-only Scope

[John Mattsson <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Aritra,


I would like to see at least the COSE parts progress in JOSE WG or COSE WG. I think draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem is in a very good state already. I don’t think it requires much more work.


Updates from LAKE WG is that LAKE has been rechartered to work on PQC and that a PQC design team has recommended the WG to adopt draft-spm-lake-pqsuites.

Cheers,
John Preuß Mattsson

From: Aritra Banerjee (Nokia) <aritra.banerjee=[e-mail]>
Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2026 at 16:07
To: JOSE WG <[e-mail]>
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>; Tirumaleswar Reddy.K <[e-mail]>
Subject: [jose] Interest to align PQC KEM for JOSE or COSE-only Scope


Hello,

As part of determining the appropriate scope and ensuring alignment with working group priorities, we would like to solicit feedback from the JOSE WG regarding potential interest in the area of JOSE PQC KEM draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem/

In particular, we would appreciate the group’s views on the following questions:

  1.  Is there interest within the JOSE Working Group to keep PQC KEM mechanisms for use with JOSE?
  2.
Alternatively, there is an interest in the work for COSE, LAKE (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spm-lake-pqsuites/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-authz/ ) especially related to EDHOC mechanisms; so, is it more prudent to keep the scope of the draft for COSE only?

Understanding the WG’s level of interest will help guide the direction and intended applicability of the draft.

We would welcome any feedback, including expressions of interest, prior discussions, or considerations relevant to PQC KEM within the JOSE context.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,

Aritra.