Using Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) Algorithms in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-08

[Ballot comment]
===

From Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director:

Thanks to Sean Turner for the ARTART review, and the PR.

The security considerations mentions both AES-GCM and AES-CBC.

Is there a need to comment on binding the CEK or CAEK to a specific symmetric encryption algorithm, similar to:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-housley-lamps-cms-cek-hkdf-sha256/

Or the algorithm integrity protection comments in:

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9459.html#section-8

I am concerned about how cross mode attacks are or are not mitigated by this document, but I lack the CMS experience to be able to compare the security properties to COSE.

"""
In this environment, security depends on three things. First, the KEM algorithm must be secure against adaptive chosen ciphertext attacks. Second, the key-encryption algorithm must provide confidentiality and integrity protection. Third, the choices of the KDF and the key-encryption algorithm need to provide the same level of security as the KEM algorithm.
"""

It seems like there is possibly a missing criteria that assures that the same content encryption algorithm is used on both sides of the KEM interface, after the CEK or CAEK is decrypted?

[Ballot comment]
Thanks to Brian Weis for the SecDir review. I think there are some good
suggestions in there. Please take those into consideration:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-06-secdir-lc-weis-2023-10-24/

I had one question myself:

        Implementations that do not support the ukm field SHOULD
        gracefully discontinue processing when the ukm field is present.

Can this field be present and empty/zero-length ? If so, does this
affect the SHOULD above?

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-08. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Other Recipient Info Identifiers (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.13) registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

the early registration for:

Decimal: 3
Description: id-ori-kem

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier registry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-kemAlgorithmInformation-2023
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0) registry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a single new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-cms-kemri-2023
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-02-21):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: corey.bonnell@digicert.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Using Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) Algorithms in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: - 'Using Key
Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) Algorithms in the
  Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-02-21. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) supports key transport and key
  agreement algorithms.  In recent years, cryptographers have been
  specifying Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) algorithms, including
  quantum-secure KEM algorithms.  This document defines conventions for
  the use of KEM algorithms by the originator and recipients to encrypt
  and decrypt CMS content.  This document updates RFC 5652.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  There is widespread agreement within the WG on the content of the document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There were no discussions that manifested in controversy. Suggestions from
  reviewers were readily integrated into the document by the authors.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  During the call for WG adoption, several individuals on the mailing list
  indicated a willingness to both review as well as implement this document.
  At least two implementations are known to exist: one of the authors'
  implementations as well as in Bouncy Castle.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  The technologies that are related to this specification fall within
  the scope of the WG in which this document was adopted.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  ASN.1 is used. It was validated using a publicly available ASN.1 compiler.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    No concerns were noticed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Proposed Standard on the IETF Stream.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.

    The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

    The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
    related to this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    The idnits tool did not report any errors or relevant warnings.
    Additionally, the document adheres to the Content Guidelines.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All normative references are RFCs with the exception of X.680 and X.690.
    The normatively referenced versions of these two documents are freely
    available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    An Other Recipient Info (ORI) Identifier "id-ori-kem" as described in
    section 3 of this document has undergone early assignment in the
    "SMI Security for S/MIME Other Recipient Info Identifiers" registry
    (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.13).

    Two ASN.1 module identifiers have been added:
   
      The module identifier "id-mod-kemAlgorithmInformation-2023" as described
      in section 6.1 of the document is added to the
      "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0).

      The module identifier "id-mod-cms-kemri-2023" as described in section
      6.2 of the document is added to the
      "SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier" registry (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    No new IANA registries are needed.

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri-06. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know.

IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are three actions which we must complete.

First, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Other Recipient Info Identifiers (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.13) registry in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

the early registration for:

Decimal: 3
Description: id-ori-kem

will have its reference changed to [ RFC-to-be ].

Second, in the SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier registry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-kemAlgorithmInformation-2023
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this document requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

Third, in the SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier registry also in the Structure of Management Information (SMI) Numbers (MIB Module Registrations) registry group located at:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/

a new registration will be made as follows:

Decimal: [ TBD-at-Registration ]
Description: id-mod-cms-kemri-2023
Reference: [ RFC-to-be ]

As this also requests registrations in an Expert Review or Specification Required (see RFC 8126) registry, we will initiate the required Expert Review via a separate request. This review must be completed before the document's IANA state can be changed to "IANA OK."

We understand that these are the only actions required to be completed upon approval of this document.

NOTE: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is meant only to confirm the list of actions that will be performed.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2023-10-25):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: corey.bonnell@digicert.com, draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri@ietf.org, lamps-chairs@ietf.org, rdd@cert.org, spasm@ietf.org, tim.hollebeek@digicert.com
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Using Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) Algorithms in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Limited Additional Mechanisms for
PKIX and SMIME WG (lamps) to consider the following document: - 'Using Key
Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) Algorithms in the
  Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2023-10-25. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  The Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) supports key transport and key
  agreement algorithms.  In recent years, cryptographers have been
  specifying Key Encapsulation Mechanism (KEM) algorithms, including
  quantum-secure KEM algorithms.  This document defines conventions for
  the use of KEM algorithms by the originator and recipients to encrypt
  and decrypt CMS content.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  There is widespread agreement within the WG on the content of the document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There were no discussions that manifested in controversy. Suggestions from
  reviewers were readily integrated into the document by the authors.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  During the call for WG adoption, several individuals on the mailing list
  indicated a willingness to both review as well as implement this document.
  At least two implementations are known to exist: one of the authors'
  implementations as well as in Bouncy Castle.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  The technologies that are related to this specification fall within
  the scope of the WG in which this document was adopted.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  ASN.1 is used. It was validated using a publicly available ASN.1 compiler.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    No concerns were noticed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Proposed Standard on the IETF Stream.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.

    The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

    The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
    related to this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    The idnits tool did not report any errors or relevant warnings.
    Additionally, the document adheres to the Content Guidelines.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All normative references are RFCs with the exception of X.680 and X.690.
    The normatively referenced versions of these two documents are freely
    available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    An Other Recipient Info (ORI) Identifier "id-ori-kem" as described in
    section 3 of this document has undergone early assignment in the
    "SMI Security for S/MIME Other Recipient Info Identifiers" registry
    (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.13).

    Two ASN.1 module identifiers have been added:
   
      The module identifier "id-mod-kemAlgorithmInformation-2023" as described
      in section 6.1 of the document is added to the
      "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0).

      The module identifier "id-mod-cms-kemri-2023" as described in section
      6.2 of the document is added to the
      "SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier" registry (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    No new IANA registries are needed.

# Document Shepherd Write-Up for draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kemri

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

  There is widespread agreement within the WG on the content of the document.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?

  There were no discussions that manifested in controversy. Suggestions from
  reviewers were readily integrated into the document by the authors.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)

  No one has threatened an appeal.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

  During the call for WG adoption, several individuals on the mailing list
  indicated a willingness to both review as well as implement this document.
  At least two implementations are known to exist: one of the authors'
  implementations as well as in Bouncy Castle.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.

  The technologies that are related to this specification fall within
  the scope of the WG in which this document was adopted.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

  No special reviews are needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?

  This document does not include a YANG module.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

  ASN.1 is used. It was validated using a publicly available ASN.1 compiler.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

  Yes.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

    No concerns were noticed.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

    As reflected in the Datatracker: Proposed Standard on the IETF Stream.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

    No IPR disclosures were issued against this document.

    The authors have explicitly stated that they are unaware of any IPR
    that needs to be declared.

    The authors have explicitly stated that they do not hold any IPR
    related to this document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

    Yes.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

    The idnits tool did not report any errors or relevant warnings.
    Additionally, the document adheres to the Content Guidelines.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].

    No concerns.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?

    All normative references are RFCs with the exception of X.680 and X.690.
    The normatively referenced versions of these two documents are freely
    available.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.

    There are no downward references.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?

    No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

    No, this document will not change the status of any other document.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

    An Other Recipient Info (ORI) Identifier "id-ori-kem" as described in
    section 3 of this document has undergone early assignment in the
    "SMI Security for S/MIME Other Recipient Info Identifiers" registry
    (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.13).

    Two ASN.1 module identifiers have been added:
   
      The module identifier "id-mod-kemAlgorithmInformation-2023" as described
      in section 6.1 of the document is added to the
      "SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier" registry (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0).

      The module identifier "id-mod-cms-kemri-2023" as described in section
      6.2 of the document is added to the
      "SMI Security for S/MIME Module Identifier" registry (1.2.840.113549.1.9.16.0).

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

    No new IANA registries are needed.