[lamps] Re: Liaison Statement from ETSI TC ESI WG PQC to IETF LAMPS working group

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

CMP and CMC already have more than one proof-of-possesion approach.  RFC 9883 adds an additional workflow based on a different trust model.  So, I suggest a bit higher-level description around enrollment:

The LAMPS WG has been updating certificate enrollment protocols to
support certification of KEM public keys.  For example CMPv3 has been
published as RFC 9810.  Further work is anticipated related to
proof-of-possession and certificate enrollment.  We invite people
from the ETSI community to participate should this work get adopted.

Russ

> On Jun 9, 2026, at 10:57 AM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Russ Housley <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Please review the proposed response to this liaison statement.
> 
> Weird that ETSI is using the term PQC, as they have preferred "quantum-safe"
> otherwise...
> EVerything you wrote looks fine to me.
> 
> They did not ask specifically about plans for enrollment of keys that can not
> sign (either by policy, or because math).   Okay, that's a pet project of
> mine.
> I might add:
> 
> "The LAMPS WG has been doing maintenance on enrollment protocols such as CMP
> and EST and is contemplating starting new work to update these protocols
> and/or the underlying CSR concept to support algorithms that do not support
> signing as proof-of-possession.  We invite ETSI to participate in this
> process, should it get adopted."
> 
> 
>> = = = = = = = =
> 
>> Since the CAdES specifications rely in particular on RFC 5652, the
>> LAMPS WG wants ETSI TC EIS to be aware of the work that has already
>> been accomplished to prepare CMS for use with PQC algorithms.  First,
>> RFC 9629 specifies the use of Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM)
>> Algorithms in the CMS.  Second, several specifications for the use of
>> PQC signature algorithms have been written, including: RFC 8708, RFC
>> 9814, and RFC 9882.  More are on the way, including support for
>> composite signature algorithms.  Third, several specifications for the
>> use of PQC KEM algorithms have been written, including: RFC 9936.  More
>> are on the way, including support for composite KEM algorithms.
> 
>> Since the EN 319 412 technical specification series build on RFC 5280,
>> the LAMPS WG wants ETSI TC EIS to be aware of the work that has already
>> been accomplished to prepare public key certificates for use with PQC
>> algorithms.  First, several specifications for the use of PQC signature
>> algorithms have been written, including: RFC 9802, RFC 9881, and RFC
>> 9909.  More are on the way, including support for composite signature
>> algorithms.  Second, RFC 9935 specifies the way to carry an ML-KEM
>> public key as the certificate subject public key.  Similar
>> specifications are on the way for other PQC KEMs, including support for
>> composite KEM algorithms.
> 
>> US NIST is assigning algorithm identifiers for PQC algorithms that they
>> specify, and you will see that the RFCs listed above use these
>> algorithm identifiers for these algorithms.
> 
>> ISO has assigned algorithm identifiers for the FrodoKEM algorithm.  The
>> LAMPS WG is considering adopting specifications related to this
>> algorithm, and these use the ISO-assigned algorithm identifiers.
> 
>> IANA has assigned algorithm identifiers for HSS/LMS, XMSS, XMSS^MT,
>> composite KEM algorithms, and composite signature algorithms.  These
>> algorithm identifiers are included in this registry:
> 
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.6
> 
>> Best Regards, Russ and Tim
> 
> 
>>> On Jun 8, 2026, at 11:39 AM, Russ Housley <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: ETSI ESIsupport <[e-mail]> Subject: Liaison
>>>> Statement from ETSI TC ESI WG PQC to IETF LAMPS working group Date:
>>>> June 8, 2026 at 4:37:44 AM EDT To: "[e-mail]"
>>>> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>>> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>>>> <[e-mail]> Cc: Nick Pope <[e-mail]>,
>>>> Jean-Emmanuel Perez Hernandez
>>>> <[e-mail]>, Lucas PRABEL
>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>> 
>>>> Dear IETF LAMPS experts,
>>>> 
>>>> Please find attached a liaison statement from ETSI TC ESI WG PQC to
>>>> IETF LAMPS working group.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Actions: Considering that the CAdES specifications rely in
>>>> particular on RFC 5652, and that the EN 319 412 technical
>>>> specification series build on RFC 5280, ESI PQC would welcome
>>>> collaborating with the IETF LAMPS working group to ensure that the
>>>> CAdES standard and the EN 319 412 series remains aligned with the
>>>> latest and upcoming specifications from IETF LAMPS that deal with
>>>> PQC, in particular it is kindly requested to IETF LAMPS for an update
>>>> on the status of the support of PQC algorithms in IETF LAMPS
>>>> specifications, especially whether algorithm identifiers have already
>>>> been allocated for use in CMS signatures and X.509 certificates.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Date of next meetings of the originator: ESIPQC#1a 3rd July 2026
>>>> ESIPQC#1b 28th August 2026 ESIPQC#2 15 October 2026
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Antoine.
>>> <ESI(26)000319_LS_form_ESI_PQC_to_IETF_LAMPS.docx>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ Spasm mailing list --
>>> [e-mail] To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> Alternatives:
> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________ Spasm mailing list --
>> [e-mail] To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> **       My working hours and your working hours may be different.         **
> ** Please do not feel obligated to reply outside your normal working hours **
> 
> 
> 
>