Feat/crypto registry aes gcm siv

[Mehrn0ush]

As discussed in ticket #758, this PR adds AES-GCM-SIV as an AEAD variant to the Cryptography Registry.

Fixes #758

Details

• Adds standardized AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) as an ae variant under the existing AES family

Scope

• Registry data only (schema/cryptography-defs.json)
• No schema or specification behavior changes

[bhess]

Thank you, @Mehrn0ush, for adding AES-GCM-SIV, this looks good to me.

Please check my comment regarding the pattern.
I also noticed some changes duplicated from your other PRs (XChaCha20, TUAK, and bcrypt). You might want to remove those from this PR to ensure a clean merge.

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR adds AES-GCM-SIV support to the Cryptography Registry as requested in issue #758. However, it also includes several unrelated changes that were not mentioned in the PR description.

Changes:

• Adds AES-GCM-SIV (RFC 8452) as an AEAD variant to the AES family
• Adds XChaCha20-Poly1305 to ChaCha20 family variants (not mentioned in PR description)
• Removes BLAKE2b-HMAC variant (not mentioned in PR description)
• Fixes spelling errors in TUAK patterns (TUAC -> TUAK)
• Fixes typo in bcrypt pattern (closing parenthesis -> closing brace)

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

The addition of XChaCha20-Poly1305 is not mentioned in the PR description or issue #758. This change should either be removed from this PR and submitted separately with appropriate justification, or the PR description should be updated to explain why this variant is being added.

Suggested change

	},
	{
	"pattern": "XChaCha20-Poly1305",
	"primitive": "ae"

[Copilot]

The removal of the BLAKE2b-HMAC variant (lines 944-946 in the original) is not mentioned in the PR description or issue #758. This deletion should either be reverted and submitted in a separate PR with appropriate justification, or the PR description should be updated to explain why this variant is being removed.

[stevespringett]

Please update the pattern based on the suggestion from @bhess

[stevespringett]

Thanks for the PR. Could you resolve the issue that @bhess mentioned? Once corrected, we'll merge this in. Thanks again