On Wed, 24 Sept 2025 at 10:29, John Mattsson <john.mattsson= [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Sure, we will publish the revised draft. Cheers, -Tiru > > > 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 <bcampbell= > [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]> 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] > To unsubscribe send an email to [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] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
