Re: [Cfrg] I-D Action: draft-irtf-cfrg-argon2-10.txt

[Milan Broz <[e-mail]>]

On 07/04/2020 01:41, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> I did an IRSG review for -09. This addresses all the issues
> that I found there, except one, and that being (I think)
> the most important one;-)
> 
> The issue: What is a "primary variant" and what is an
> implementer supposed to do?
> 
> The above is a quote from my review of -09. Apologies if I
> missed some change in -10 that addresses this.
> 
> Let me make a suggestion: state that argon2id is mandatory
> to implement, and that the other variants are not.

Hi,

Argon2id is combination of Argon2i + Argon2d, so implementing
all three variants should be quite easy (code must be there anyway,
it is just about providing external interface to it).

I think all variants should be mandatory...  and as I understand
the current RFC draft (3.1 section), it already says so:

o  Type y of Argon2: MUST be 0 for Argon2d, 1 for Argon2i, 2 for
      Argon2id.

(We use Argon2 in cryptsetup/LUKS2 and Argon2i (not id) is
currently the primary variant for the key derivation.
For compatibility with existing devices we need support
for all three variants. But obviously, this is just one use case,
RFC is more generic.)

Thanks,
Milan