[openpgp] Re: Small correction for draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2026, Johannes Roth wrote:

> I have created a PR [1] to fix the description in the PQC draft and we will 
> release a new version soon.

As the document is now with the RFC Editor, I would recommend not
releasing a new version, as they will have to go back and do extra
work. It is best to have a textual fixup eg with CURRENT and NEW
markers that we can send to the RFC Editor.

Paul

> Thanks for catching the error!
>
> Best,
> Johannes
>
> [1] https://github.com/openpgp-pqc/draft-openpgp-pqc/pull/266
>
>
> On 26.01.2026 14:02, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>  On Mon 2026-01-26 09:54:05 +0000, Daniel Huigens wrote:
>>>  Apologies for the last minute (last second?) comment, but there's a
>>>  small error in Section 4.3.1 of draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc, which states:
>>>
>>>>  Note that like in the case of the algorithms X25519 and X448 specified
>>>>  in [RFC9580], for the ML-KEM composite schemes, in the case of a v3
>>>>  PKESK packet, the symmetric algorithm identifier is not encrypted.
>>>>  Instead, it is placed in plaintext after the mlkemCipherText and
>>>>  before the length octet preceding the wrapped session key.
>>>
>>>  However, according to the preceding list and the test vectors, and more
>>>  in line with X25519 and X448, the symmetric algorithm ID is placed
>>>  _after_ the length octet (and included in that length).
>>>
>>>  The proposed additions to the IANA registry also place the octet
>>>  correctly, which actually is _not_ true for RFC9580, which failed to
>>>  include it in the table (mea culpa for that one, I'll file an erratum).
>>
>>  Thanks for catching this!  Please propose concrete text to be
>>  incorporated during the RFC Editor's phase, and file that erratum.
>>  We'll get it sorted.
>>
>>           --dkg
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  openpgp mailing list -- [e-mail]
>>  To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>