Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 15 February 2021 16:57 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088063A0D87 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:57:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.004
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.004 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XOdEZ0gtRCI for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x135.google.com (mail-lf1-x135.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 062B73A0D85 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:57:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x135.google.com with SMTP id v30so11411813lfq.6 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:57:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Db1kzLCm0xXMehGzKv3Kh4p04ZkYBan3XKzhDnZqyks=; b=Jil/N1HEsgvt1NhUFi1Ov6yWSldLU63+RojQhYNfjew/HQVD576ZmQovsl5PgQbTEZ B/Vwarv+7HU7l0KpkT0NGLXupRnkkNoibBo6c4nJms1ajQxQ2sNlITfS13IVkW8JK2W4 LutJxBTJW7RFqdg3bwrGB84Zy1lYf31/2WxidkAvu+rHM9n7IhxOsLyVPcBXLr9g5iTE uKIXluli/Y29lT7bQg2IfGHfF/62wwoCSiCz7t+WToEHWUGfBhc+IzxVWBG9/nvMFIRg dIK0O+iecXRJBoPufdTZooUue+iKMGdaEsWlRYoayzAB0eMu71FrKE1MHK1TSfz4QEgY Pekg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Db1kzLCm0xXMehGzKv3Kh4p04ZkYBan3XKzhDnZqyks=; b=cjN2IzZBEOKicGNxkz1d9ygLQTHk8u0L7Ggdo+ZFkEQJhuDIXJaaCkviyDe/fCCrBu VCh/WbeL6yUQqXYX+ZCGdhNg8VBN8VfTYOXX9eY+PRaQjj6hfe1DhM/P+J2bZSpEKK6V gPysyd4IZh3NyOxndTebXwetLqg17h3DiGzFw0X4A+yLZH/7s5DMAnsjbDl8C8ZHncLf LmgADNgTi3gQDrT8kvX+5vftMU6hNlVRSbBHoxrIy2o68v/A3x1x9n+KRztO3COt9KUv AutqlhhZd7rexRZqdrneqtlIUR+rDz0bVDiYkEgasHt9GHhcvuEPgX0jq5XGCLMP3TA8 2Vhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533sn8mefONijov78vtn+4Qm/4j3oOA0CWGyPLgM+0VsCDeXtvty BNcKkNx2oRXtN9U9vNIbBInRnaougQM+Zjyvuoa5MQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwcJhSfbaNSdEDo74XwJPPKFqbJ+URx0bM7sy7wfDFWfo70aPqm8MDDdKnEZPm4C2Hzv50gJlzW/ZJoiaKzzC8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4111:: with SMTP id b17mr9106579lfi.132.1613408222033; Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:57:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0fcfb0ed-249b-7cd3-09ba-ed1c73122383@lounge.org> <CABcZeBMGJQ7sAKovy3japXVVLWRB8ydpsDzZxhijvFCtXptsZQ@mail.gmail.com> <e19e3ca1-e209-40c6-82e3-24c6d330bff8@www.fastmail.com> <24202a57-0fff-1a56-480c-dfb59989ab8e@lounge.org> <D2A7FD5D-7261-4908-8675-3C7EE2626E8D@inria.fr> <CAL02cgRwrzVHShr3uSd6mkzo_2RULKCDzKBfLz-YxTizWq63_g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgRwrzVHShr3uSd6mkzo_2RULKCDzKBfLz-YxTizWq63_g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 08:56:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO_+U5zFFot7BabrKmXz7M3aBcg1W-DFLvr-9k9cuaXhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: Karthik Bhargavan <karthikeyan.bhargavan@inria.fr>, CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f3cc8e05bb62dfc9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/VxpHoD5M_sfPL_GZtSaYtvhhT8I>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2021 16:57:06 -0000
WFM. On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:51 AM Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote: > Hi folks, > > I think Karthik is on the right track here. While the compact > representation undoubtedly has its benefits, it seems like there is no > disagreement that it is not widely supported in either standards or crypto > libraries. So there is a sizable community for whom a requirement to use > the compact format would render HPKE unusable. > > Given that, I would propose we resolve this issue in the following way: > * In the current document, define KEMs for the NIST curves using the > uncompressed format. > * If there is a community that is *also* interested in supporting the > compact format, they can define new KEM code points for it. > > Would folks be comfortable proceeding on that basis? > > --Richard > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:45 AM Karthik Bhargavan < > karthikeyan.bhargavan@inria.fr> wrote: > >> I think the idea of having a compact representation of EC points for use >> in IoT-like scenarios is an attractive one, but the core ciphersuites of >> HPKE should only depend on standardized and widely-implemented point >> formats. >> >> In particular, HPKE is certainly not the right place to standardize a new >> EC point format, however sensible the change may seem. >> A protocol like EDHOC is laser-focused on small wire messages and is >> meant to be implemented by IoT-specific crypto libraries, and so it makes >> sense for that protocol to employ such optimizations. >> Perhaps the LAKE working group could drive a IETF/CFRG standard for >> x-only EC point representations that are more generally usable by other >> protocols? >> >> Having said all that, HPKE is extensible and we do anticipate extensions >> to HPKE in the near future, notably for adding PQ ciphersuites. >> I think the best way to proceed for compact HPKE would be, along the >> lines of Dan’s suggestion, to propose new KEM algorithm identifiers for >> compact encodings of the NIST curves, and to do this as part of a new CFRG >> draft as an extension to HPKE. >> I suspect that, beyond the point representation, we may find other parts >> of HPKE that would benefit from compaction for low-bandwidth scenarios. >> >> Best, >> Karthik >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CFRG mailing list >> CFRG@irtf.org >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg >> > _______________________________________________ > CFRG mailing list > CFRG@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg >
- [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE John Mattsson
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Richard Barnes
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Mike Hamburg
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE John Mattsson
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Michael Scott
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Michael Scott
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Benjamin Beurdouche
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Loup Vaillant-David
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Eric Rescorla
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Christopher Wood
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Paul Hoffman
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Stephen Farrell
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Eric Rescorla
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Stephen Farrell
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Andrey Jivsov
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Mike Hamburg
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Mike Hamburg
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Loup Vaillant-David
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Salz, Rich
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Mike Hamburg
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Stephen Farrell
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Peter Gutmann
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE John Mattsson
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Benjamin Lipp
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE John Mattsson
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Mike Hamburg
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Billy Brumley
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Salz, Rich
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Karthik Bhargavan
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Richard Barnes
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Eric Rescorla
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Benjamin Beurdouche
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Dan Harkins
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE John Mattsson
- Re: [CFRG] compact representation and HPKE denis bider