Hi,
Tschofenig, Hannes wrote:
>I would like to request that the chairs make a consensus call so that we can
>close this issue and move the draft forward.
In Madrid we actually had two polls:
Poll - Should OKP be used for PQC KEM Keys
Yes 0 / No 5/ No Opinion 7
Poll - Should we use AKP
Yes 5 / No 1 / No Opinion 10
As suggested by Brian, my expectation is that the authors update the draft to
reflect this. Then, we can take the discussion from there.
Cheers,
John
From: Filip Skokan <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, 23 September 2025 at 15:32
To: Brian Campbell <[email protected]>
Cc: Tschofenig, Hannes <[email protected]>, [email protected]
<[email protected]>
Subject: [jose] Re: Suggestion to conclude the key type discussion in the PQC
KEM draft
+1 to what Brian said. I brought up the same points in July asking for the
current draft to reflect the outcomes of Polls taken but alas the draft is
still using OKP that there was never consensus for and shouldn't have been
switched to - thread starts
here<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jose/Rcqv4rDYPh4BT1wm8fLWn02DILo/>.
S pozdravem,
Filip Skokan
On Mon, 22 Sept 2025 at 23:24, Brian Campbell
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
There might be reason to resurface this discussion but the use of OKP was
definitely not the “clear winner” at and around the last meeting. There was not
consensus to switch away from AKP in the first place, and the poll that was run
on whether to use OKP had a very clear outcome: "Poll - Should OKP be used for
PQC KEM Keys: Yes 0 / No 5/ No Opinion 7" from
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-123-jose-202507241500/. The
draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem published should reflect that outcome as the baseline
before any consensus call is made.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 8:50 AM Tschofenig, Hannes
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi all,
I have read the mailing list discussion around key types in the PQC KEM draft
(draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem). This might seem like an unexciting detail. After
all, who really cares about the name of the structure in which the key is
embedded? Yet, quite to my surprise, it has turned out that there are multiple
views on the subject.
From what I can see, there is no obvious “clear winner” among the three
candidates (“OKP”, “AKP”, and a new key type). In fact, it is striking how many
different key types we already have in the JOSE ecosystem.
The good news, however, is that whichever option we select, the implementation
effort is minimal.
I would request the chairs to make a consensus call so that we can close this
issue and move on with the draft.
Ciao
Hannes
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by
e-mail and delete the message and any file attachments from your computer.
Thank you._______________________________________________
jose mailing list -- [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
jose mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
