[CFRG] Re: ML-KEM for HPKE: just use seeds

[Deirdre Connolly <[e-mail]>]

Yes you are correct - I was thinking I was registering a whole 'HPKE'
ciphersuite which is incorrect, this is just for the KEM, which is fully
described by FIPS 203 and doesn't need the extra KDF and AEAD definitions,
I'll be removing that text.

On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 5:56 AM Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Apologies for my hasty response on too little sleep.
>
> After skimming FIPS203 again, it looks like the hash function is fully
> specified, so just deleting the paragraph about KDFs and AEAD seems best to
> me.
>
> And NSecret is indeed always 32. It might be worth a note so readers less
> familiar with ML-KEM don't think it is a typo.
>
> Thanks,
> -rohan
>
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2024, 02:23 Rohan Mahy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dierdre,
>> Thanks very much for getting this out. My main technical concern is this
>> paragraph, which does not provide a clear mapping of ML-KEM size to its
>> KDF, and muddles cipher suite definition with KEM definition:
>>
>> We use HKDF-SHA256 and HKDF-SHA512 as the HPKE KDFs and AES-128-GCM and
>> AES-256-GCM as the AEADs for ML-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024.
>>
>> Please define the specific KDF to use clearly in text or in a table. (I
>> think we can leave AEAD out of this.) I heard much talk of using ML-KEM-768
>> for the 128-bit and 192-bit security levels. Should we have 3 or 4
>> definitions for HPKE KEM?
>> ML-KEM-512 (SHA256) for ??
>> ML-KEM-768 (SHA256) for 128?
>> ML-KEM-768 (SHA384) for 192
>> ML-KEM-1024 (SHA512) for 256
>>
>> Regarding the IANA registration section, it requests 0x0512, 0x0768, and
>> 0x1024. Please don't. 0x0040, 0x0041, etc would be much better. Is NSecret
>> really only 32 for all three KEMs? I would have guessed these increased to
>> 48 and 64.
>>
>> I'll propose an editorial PR soon, but these are my only substantive
>> issues.
>> Thanks,
>> -rohan
>>
>>
>>