| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Thanks
Best Regards
Jay Yang (杨志杰)
Regarding “compatibility issues”, please state what they are. We do not need to worry about legacy devices as this is for PQC protocols and for forward compatibility I do not see what the issue is.
What is “frame-by-frame design” and what issues are associated with it that affect 11-26/1163r2?
Dan.
--
“the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
On 6/17/26, 12:44 PM, "Jay Yang" <yang.zhijie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Dan,
Thank you for your efforts on this.
I would like to understand the exact parsing issue if we design the PQC parameters as follows: Place the KEM Encapsulation key field and KEM Ciphertext field immediately after the PQC Parameter element.
|<-------------------------------PQC Parameter element-------------------------------à|
Element ID | Length | Element ID Extension | Security Profile Number | Content Presence field | Public Key Parameter | KEM Encapsulation Key | KEM Ciphertext |
Octets: 1 1 1 1 1 variable variable variable
The receiver parses it as follows:
1. If the PQC element is not present, the KEM Encapsulation key and KEM ciphertext are also not present. The receiver does not need to decode the additional two fields if it cannot find the PQC Parameter element based on the element PQC Parameter element's TLV information.
2. If the PQC Parameter element is present, based on the indication in the Content Presence field. For example, if the Content Presence field indicates that the ML-KEM public key is included in the KEM Encapsulation key field , the receiver will continue to decode the KEM Encapsulation key field after decoding the PQC Parameter element.
3. If the PQC Parameter element is present, based on the indication in the Content Presence field. For example, if the Content Presence field indicates that the KEM Encapsulation key or KEM ciphertext are not present (e.g., Content Presence field equals 0 (No parameter present) ), the receiver will not decode the KEM Encapsulation key or KEM ciphertext after finishing the decoding of the PQC Parameter element. Instead, it will continue to decode other elements based on the TLV information.
If we proceed in this direction, we could address a number of comments (compatibility issues, frame-by-frame design issues, etc.) we received during the call.
Welcome to more insights from you and the group.
杨志杰10343608
Thanks
Best Regards
Jay Yang (杨志杰)
Original
From: Harkins,Dan <00003862fd143b8a-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Date: 2026年06月18日 02:25
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBT] 11-26/1163r2
Po-kai,
In the teleconference today you said that the changes I’m proposing in 11-26/1163r2 also require changes to the PQC Security Profile Number values but you didn’t say what they are. Can you explain what changes my document is missing? Thanks.
Regards,
Dan.
--
“the object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1