Apologies for what might be a naive question but it seems to me that the rationale given for draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt was that HPKE with/over JOSE was needed to allow for PQ KEMs in JWE/JOSE. But this draft, by many of the same folks, seems to be defining PQ-KEM use within JOSE without HPKE or draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt. Is there not some logical fallacy here?
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 2:50 PM Karen ODonoghue <[email protected]> wrote: > JOSE and COSE working group members, > > The following draft has been submitted for consideration by the JOSE > working group. The chairs agreed, at IETF 120, to issue a call for > adoption. > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-cose-jose-pqc-kem/ > > Please review the document and indicate (by responding to this email > and keeping the subject line intact) whether or not you think this is > a good place to start the development of this document. Please provide > comments. > > This call for adoption will close on Monday 30 September. > > Thank you, > Karen > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
