Hello Aritra,After some deliberation, I'd +1 to drop support for PQC KEM in JOSE. The utility in COSE seems to be greater.
Regards, Vladimir Vladimir Dzhuvinov On 03/06/2026 16:05, Aritra Banerjee (Nokia) wrote:
Hello,As part of determining the appropriate scope and ensuring alignment with working group priorities, we would like to solicit feedback from the JOSE WG regarding potential interest in the area of JOSE PQC KEM draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jose-pqc-kem/>In particular, we would appreciate the group’s views on the following questions:1. Is there interest within the JOSE Working Group to keep PQC KEM mechanisms for use with JOSE? 2. Alternatively, there is an interest in the work for COSE, LAKE (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-spm-lake-pqsuites/ and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lake-authz/ ) especially related to EDHOC mechanisms; so, is it more prudent to keep the scope of the draft for COSE only?Understanding the WG’s level of interest will help guide the direction and intended applicability of the draft.We would welcome any feedback, including expressions of interest, prior discussions, or considerations relevant to PQC KEM within the JOSE context.Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Aritra. _______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
