Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-kem Title: Composite ML-KEM for use in Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments. For more information, please see the FAQ at <https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>. Document: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-composite-kem-01 Reviewer: Elwyn Davies Review Date: 2026-09-10 IETF LC End Date: 2026-08-18 IESG Telechat date: 2026-09-17 Summary: Ready with a couple of nits. Apologies for the very late delivery of this review. This was mainly caused by my somehow getting diverted onto reviewing draft-ietf-lanmps-pq-composite-kem-21 to which this draft is intimately related. This turned out to be much more challenging and I only realized my error when I tried to submit my review and in the process seriously upset Cloudfare. We now have three options for the Encap(s(ulate)) and Decap(s(ulate)) between the two Composite MLKEM drafts and RFC 9180. Time for some agreement! Major issues: None Minor issues: None Nits/editorial comments: Abstract and s1: Need to expand ML-KEM in 'combinations of MLKEM' in the abstract and in 'which combine ML-KEM' in s1. s1.3, Definition of Encapsulate(ek): The function name used in draft-ietf-lamps-pq-compsite-kem-21 is Encaps (there has been discussion as to whether Encap as used in RFC 9180 woulld be more appropriate). s1.3, Definition of Decapsulate(dk, c): The function name used in draft-ietf-lamps-pq-compsite-kem-21 is Decaps (there has been discussion as to whether Decap as used in RFC 9180 woulld be more appropriate). _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
