Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBT] CR for PQC Parameter sets Group

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

Hi Po-Kai,

Sorry I did not clean up the text. I have updated 26/1751r2. Now the text does not touch how vendor specific security profile is used and only generalizes the ML-KEM field.

Hi TaoChun,

It turns out that the change ML-KEM -> KEM can be orthogonal to the usage of vendor specific security profile. By dropping the vendor specific security profile, we actually limit the combination of hybrid algorithms of vendor specific profile and I'm not sure if people are happy to that. So, I decided to only handle ML-KEM -> KEM for the two CIDs and leave the usage of vendor specific profile to other CIDs.

Best,

Jiawei

Hi Jiawei,

I seem to remember you mentioned that you want to introduce this general KEM container and drop vendor-specific profile, yes?

Note: Current product development trending suggest to use ML-KEM as baseline, while keeping other KEM-based algorithms open for regional (hybrid) use cases.

Tao Chun Lee | Tech Manager, Standards | Communication System Design, MediaTek Inc.

Email: TaoChun.Lee@xxxxxxxxxxxx | Phone: +886 3 560 0868 | Website: www.mediatek.com

From: Huang, Po-kai <po-kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2026 4:31 AM
To: STDS-802-11-TGBT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [STDS-802-11-TGBT] CR for PQC Parameter sets Group - general KEM container

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

************* MEDIATEK Confidentiality Notice ********************
The information contained in this e-mail message (including any 
attachments) may be confidential, proprietary, privileged, or otherwise
exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. It is intended to be 
conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). Any use, dissemination, 
distribution, printing, retaining or copying of this e-mail (including its 
attachments) by unintended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may 
be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, or believe 
that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender 
immediately (by replying to this e-mail), delete any and all copies of 
this e-mail (including any attachments) from your system, and do not
disclose the content of this e-mail to any other person. Thank you!

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