Hello Post Quantum Enthusiasts, We apologize for allowing the drafts to expire, that has now been corrected.
We've published new versions and done a tooling migration to the COSE WG GitHub repository: - https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-dilithium - https://github.com/cose-wg/draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus Here is a quick summary of what changed, but of course you can see the full diff in the datatracker. 1. We adjusted the names to reflect FIPS.204 (IPD) and FIPS.205 (IPD) 2. We removed extraneous text on the details of the algorithms, which is better covered in the references noted above. 3. We provided skeletons for examples We are seeking implementations of ML-DSA and SLH-DSA in order to update the examples sections, with closer to real world data. We have opted not to migrate Falcon, the parameter sets for sphincs will probably keep us busy for a while. I'd like to take this opportunity to complain a bit about this part of the FIPS 205 IPD: " This standard approves 12 parameter sets for use with SLH-DSA. " I feel this is a mistake, and wonder if there is any opportunity to reduce this to something less than 4x the number defined by ML-DSA. Even if NIST preserves all 12, we don't have to register all 12 in draft-ietf-cose-sphincs-plus. ... I really don't want to have to generate 12 key pairs and signature examples, especially because a single key pair with the required line breaks is likely to be longer than the entire draft. Of course, we will do whatever the working group thinks is correct here... what should we do? Regards, OS -- ORIE STEELE Chief Technology Officer www.transmute.industries <https://transmute.industries>
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
