Re: [Pqc] WG adoption call for draft-driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology

[Wang Guilin <[e-mail]>]

Dear all,

I also would like to support adoption.

Here are a few more comments on a note on Multi-Algorithm Scheme, and a suggestion to define Hybrid, following my previous comments on "traditional algorithm" (just sent out about 2 hours ago).

--------------
Page 7: After the definition of *Multi-Algorithm Scheme*, it seems no need to say that "In a multi-algorithm scheme all component algorithms are of the same type; e.g., all are signature algorithms or all are Public Key Encryption (PKE) algorithms. ". This note may be too restrict. For example, a key exchange scheme may involve a singature algorithm, an encryption algorithm, and even more (like commitment algoritm). In this case, such a scheme can't be called as a Multi-Algorithm Scheme. A little bit weird. So, this note can be removed, I think.

Next, before defining different (specific) types of hybrid schemes, like PQ/T Hybrid,PQ/T KEM etc, it may be better to give a definition for a hybrid scheme, even there are already some explanations for hybrid in the last part of page 2. For example, we may definite it as follows:

*Hybrid Scheme:  a multi-algorithm scheme with two or more of the same type of MAIN component algorithms. For example, a Hybrid Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM)* will involve at least two component KEM algorithms, though other type of component algorithms may be also involved, e.g., a ZK protocol, a KDF or a key combiner.

I do think that this kind of flexibility is helpful. Otherwise, some days later, if one guy gives a construction of PQ/T Hybrid KEM, but it also involves a signature algorithm somehow. It will be strange to say that such a scheme is NOT a hybrid KEM, just because it uses signature as well, beside KEMs.
--------------

Cheers,

Guilin

________________________________

Wang Guilin
Mobile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

From:Florence D <Florence.D=[e-mail]>
To:pqc <[e-mail]>
Date:2023-04-26 22:18:29
Subject:Re: [Pqc] WG adoption call for draft-driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology

Hi,

Unsurprisingly, I also support adoption (thank you to Sofía and Paul for putting the call out).

Thank you in advance to everyone who has volunteered to review and comment, the expertise of this group will be key to producing a useful draft.

Flo

-----Original Message-----
From: Pqc <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Sofía Celi
Sent: 17 April 2023 15:33
To: [e-mail]
Subject: [Pqc] WG adoption call for draft-driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology

Hi, people,

As discussed in the PQUIP WG meeting at IETF116 (thank you all who were able to be there!), we will like to propose that we start the adoption call for draft-driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology as part of this WG:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology/
The document is a great effort into unifying different terminologies other drafts are referring to. The sense of the room at IETF116 was that it was ready for adoption.

Please indicate whether you do or do not support adoption of this I-D by 23.59UTC on 1st May 2023. If do not support adoption, please indicate why.

Thank you,

Sofía and Paul
--
Sofía Celi
@claucece
Cryptographic research and implementation at many places, specially Brave.
Chair of hprc at IRTF and anti-fraud at W3C.
Reach me out at: [e-mail]
Website: https://sofiaceli.com/
3D0B D6E9 4D51 FBC2 CEF7  F004 C835 5EB9 42BF A1D6

--
Pqc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pqc

--
Pqc mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pqc