Script updating archive at 2025-01-26T01:44:54Z. [ci skip]

archive.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "magic": "E!vIA5L86J2I",
-  "timestamp": "2025-01-23T01:42:23.300224+00:00",
+  "timestamp": "2025-01-26T01:44:49.924255+00:00",
   "repo": "lamps-wg/draft-composite-kem",
   "labels": [
     {
@@ -4072,13 +4072,13 @@
       "labels": [],
       "body": "Closes #91\r\n\r\nTODO before merging:\r\n\r\n- [ ] Review from Peter C, especially:\r\n  - the new appendix comparing this specification with ETSI CatKDF\r\n  - The intro is still a bit misleading about the endorsement from BSI, which Peter C correctly points out is to an earlier version of the composite draft, however we have Jan Klau\u00dfner as an author and close collaboration with Stavros Kousidis on the CFRG version, so BSI is a bull collaborator on developing this.\r\n- [ ] Review from Chris Wood / Deirdre / Bas, especially:\r\n  - The new appendix comparing this specification with X-Wing\r\n- [ ] I was not previously aware of ETSI TS 103 744's CatKDF. We should have a discussion on the LAMPS list about whether we want to add the ML-KEM CT to the KDF in order to offer equivalent security properties as ETSI CatKDF.",
       "createdAt": "2025-01-06T01:05:33Z",
-      "updatedAt": "2025-01-22T16:02:01Z",
+      "updatedAt": "2025-01-26T01:02:22Z",
       "baseRepository": "lamps-wg/draft-composite-kem",
       "baseRefName": "main",
       "baseRefOid": "2650db111320b4b487e341c9c2d4c03465a586e5",
       "headRepository": "lamps-wg/draft-composite-kem",
       "headRefName": "mikeo_catkdf",
-      "headRefOid": "6e97f2dcc78769de9923fd1bf58b95ffbbca4edb",
+      "headRefOid": "87a652a34576b1003eeb09c2df671730fc5c932c",
       "closedAt": null,
       "mergedAt": null,
       "mergedBy": null,
@@ -4192,6 +4192,26 @@
               "updatedAt": "2025-01-22T15:58:53Z"
             }
           ]
+        },
+        {
+          "id": "PRR_kwDOKRPFO86ZbdZq",
+          "commit": {
+            "abbreviatedOid": "d2714f5"
+          },
+          "author": "ounsworth",
+          "authorAssociation": "CONTRIBUTOR",
+          "state": "COMMENTED",
+          "body": "",
+          "createdAt": "2025-01-26T01:01:46Z",
+          "updatedAt": "2025-01-26T01:01:46Z",
+          "comments": [
+            {
+              "originalPosition": 39,
+              "body": "While I agree in principle, unfortunately a plan isn't enough. There are ML-KEM modules going through FIPS as we speak that do not even support SEED, let alone seed-from-kdf, and there are claims that seed-based private keys in general are not allowed in a CMVP-validated module. So unfortunately, I think Composites has to stay the way it is and support what is currently allowed in FIPS CMVP.",
+              "createdAt": "2025-01-26T01:01:46Z",
+              "updatedAt": "2025-01-26T01:01:46Z"
+            }
+          ]
         }
       ]
     }