Thx Valery for the feedback. 
All fixed and included in -01 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2-01.html 

-----Original Message-----
From: Valery Smyslov <[email protected]> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 8:47 AM
To: Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]>; 'IPsecME WG' <[email protected]>
Cc: Ravago, Gerardo <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] [IPsec] New Version Notification for 
draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2-00.txt

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click 
links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the 
content is safe.



Hi Panos,

first, thank you for posting this draft. I think this is an important work. Few 
comments below.

First, you should not use in the draft any codepoints until IANA allocates them.
Just replace your self-allocated values for ML-KEM with "<TBA by IANA>"
whenever it is mentioned in the draft. Once codepoints are allocated by IANA 
you will replace these placeholders with real values (that might be different 
from what are you using now).

Then, I think that there is no need to repeat in this draft text from RFC 7296, 
RFC9242, RFC 9370 etc.
It is enough if you just reference these RFCs. This would eliminate Section 2 
almost entirely, making the draft shorter. The necessary information is:
- codepoints
- length and wire format of public key and ciphertext
- recipient tests

In addition, you may also consider using ML-KEM as drop-in replacement for DH 
in IKEv2.
ML-KEM has relatively short public key, that seems to make it possible to use 
it in the IKE_SA_INIT without following IKE_INTERMEDIATE (at least in some 
situations, e.g. when IKE over TCP is used). In this case this is a pure PQ and 
not a hybrid protocol.
Note, that I'm not advocating not using hybrid key exchange in case of ML-KEM 
(quite the opposite), but you may want to mention this possibility for 
completeness.

Regards,
Valery.



> Hi all,

_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to