Hi Jiawei,
Thanks for the discussion. I guess perhaps we can try to understand how the vendor specific profile will be used first, which seems to be the focus of your proposal.
My understanding is that when Vendor specific profile is used, we will only use value 221 in content Presence field. As a result, we only have Vendor Specific Content field. However, in your
proposed text, you seem to suggest something different. Specifically, you still want to use the KEM Encapsulation Key field and the KEM Ciphertext field for vendor specific profile, but then you will not even have Vendor Specific Content at all based on the
Content Presence field indication.
This does not really align with my understanding of usage for vendor specific profile.
Best,
Po-Kai
From: wujiawei (E) <000053429a76cfd4-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 5:10 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [STDS-802-11-TGBT] CR for PQC Parameter sets Group - general KEM container
Hi Po-Kai,
I have uploaded 11-26/1751r1.
Could you consider 11-26/1751r1 for resolution of CID 383, 497 from comment group PQC Parameter sets?
Best,
Jiawei
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