Dear authors and ipsecme WG, I like the draft very much. I have some small suggestions:
- "1. Notes of Change" section compares the changes to "draft-ietf-ipsecme-kem-auth-ikev2*" document, I believe that is a typo and you mean "draft-ietf-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo*". - "4.3. Comparison to ML-KEM" subsection says "The performance of FrodoKEM is not as good as ML-KEM. As shown in Table 1, ...", where in Table 1 the private key, public key and ciphertext sizes are listed. The wording "performance of FrodoKEM" makes me believe the software/hardware performance of the FrodoKEM's algorithms is not as good as ML-KEM. I suggest changing the wording to something like "space efficiency", or "data overhead", or something third. Note: I am making this suggestion without even looking at the software/hardware performance of FrodoKEM and ML-KEM algorithms, and am just noticing the unclarity between the sentence and the table. I followed yesterday's CFRG meeting, and a couple of messages in the chat mentioned FrodoKEM, and I had some thoughts/questions (as an occasional participant in ipsecme, cfrg and IETF) that someone on the list may be able to give their opinion/answer on (I am paraphrasing the questions from my memory from yesterday): - There was a message saying cfrg FrodoKEM draft by FrodoKEM team, which is now in draft-ietf-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo-02 as a *normative* reference, was rejected by cfrg. I tried searching the cfrg mailing list but didn't find any messages (e.g. from the chairs) saying the cfrg will not pursue the https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-longa-cfrg-frodokem/ - There were 1 or 2 messages saying that cfrg/IETF should aim to standardize (or give guidance in case of cfrg) algorithms that are of importance for international community, and not follow suggestions of national standardization bodies. I was puzzled because that made me think the ML-KEM (suggested by a nation A standardization body) was somehow the sole KEM important for international community, and that IETF (in the context of the chat discussion during the meeting, where only ipsecme was mentioned as a WG that has FrodoKEM-related draft) should not spend time on FrodoKEM (suggested by nation B standardization body)?? My point here is that I think ipsecme should still continue with the effort of publishing this draft (in the hope the reference issues get resolved in the meantime, and also assuming there's enough interest from the WG). Cheers, Vukasin Karadzic
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
