Hi, I'm in favor of option 1.
Regards, OS On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:42 AM Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 01:19:37PM +0530, tirumal reddy wrote: > > Hi WG members, > > > > Following the presentation at IETF 124 in Montreal (slides > > < > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/materials/slides-124-jose-pq-kems-for-cose-and-jose-00 > >), > > we would like to seek the WG input on the choice of key type for > > representing PQC KEM keys in COSE and JOSE for > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem/. > > > > Listing the three options below: > > > > 1. > > > > *AKP (Asymmetric Key Pair)* > > > > 2. > > > > *OKP (Octet Key Pair)* > > > > 3. > > > > *New “KEM” Key Type* > > 2. > > - OKP is designed for stuff like this from the very beginning (yeah, > the naming is just bad). > > - AKP is not meant for stuff like key agreement keys. It is primarily > for pure signatures, but could work for Key Encryption (JOSE) / Key > Transport (COSE). > > - ktys are not supposed to be isomorphic, but KEM would be > isomorphic to OKP. > > > > > -Ilari > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
