OASIS PKCS 11 TC

Dear Francois,

we appreciate your feedback and comments to our work on PKCS#11 specification v3.2, thank you.

From your first comments, I understand you have been looking at working draft 07? The latest published working draft 08 https://groups.oasis-open.org/higherlogic/ws/public/document?document_id=72453&wg_id=922ef643-1e10-4d65-a5ea-018dc7d3f0a4 includes the CKA_SEED attribute in sections 6.67.3 and 6.68.3, and object IDs and wording for wrapping ML-DSA/ML-KEM keys in section 6.7.

I am currently editing working draft 09. In this revision, I will include the term KEM in the Definitions section, swap the order of CKA_SEED and CKA_VALUE in the sample code in 6.67.3 / 6.68.3, and fix the references [FIPS 203] and [FIPS 204].

I copy our TC email list OASIS-pkcs11@ConnectedCommunity.org in order to have your feedback and any further discussion archived there as well.

Finally I would recommend for the latest draft of PKCS#11 v.3.2 that the acronym KEM should be defined under the section 1.1.

As for the sample templates under the sections 6.67.3 and 6.68.3, I have noted tgat CK_BYTE value[] and CK_BYTE seed[] do not appear in the same order as CKA_SEED and CKA_VALUE, which appear just below.  Based on the proposed ASN.1 specification for the private key and for consistency, I would recommend that CK_BYTE seed[] should probably appear before CK_BYTE value[].

Could someone please confirm that you indeed have received my comments?

Best regards,

Francois Rousseau

I am sorry for the multiple emails, but I have also noted in the latest draft of PKCS#11 v3.2 that the Appendix A.1 incorrectly refers to FIPS 203 for the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard and FIPS 204 for the Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard, when in reality it is actually the reverse.

 

For your consideration,

 

Francois Rousseau

 

Sent from my iPad

 

On Jan 22, 2025, at 16:02, Francois Rousseau <frousse@icloud.com> wrote:



In addition, I have also noted that the first paragraph of Section 6.7 of the latest draft of PKCS#11 v3.2 fails to mention the use of secret keys for wrapping and unwrapping the ML-DSA and ML-KEM private keys.

 

For your consideration,

 

Francois Rousseau

 

Sent from my iPad

 

On Jan 22, 2025, at 14:42, Francois Rousseau <frousse@icloud.com> wrote:



Hi Dieter and Greg,

 

I have just recently noted in the latest draft of PKCS#11 v3.2, which was shared yesterday by Viktor in his email to the LAMPS working group for the Request to Extend IETF WGLC for ML-KEM and ML-DSA private key format Specification, that the third paragraph under the sections 6.67.4 and 6.68.4 of PKCS#11 both fails to mention the CKA_SEED attribute as part of the attributes to the new private key, which seems inconsistent.  Am I missing something?

Best regards,

 

Francois Rousseau

 

Sent from my iPad

Hello Francois,

thank you very much for the clarification. I'll include your feedback in the next working draft.