IETF Logo Mail Archive

[IPsec] Re: Call for adoption: draft-wang-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo-03 (Ends 2026-02-09)

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 22 January 2026 21:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipsec@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ipsec@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13603ABAB968 for <ipsec@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:04:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qki6TLo-zvis for <ipsec@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:04:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1B4BABAB10C for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A389518021 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:04:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id Hcc_vx-bZE6M for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:04:07 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1769115847; bh=NvI44Zfmsc592KLTkhGSitVERZ3pkN1IhlTSwL4RW50=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Mx42g4RttqcYXPkYyRbmhwmDh+fCYIGP/FbyvUD8q1ulEVyqI1yhJ/PbCv2UTdhuH +SMJg1AlzcM/BjrH+6/KoOfXg8IQtiXCyFgWTa9EU8ry3a1TivDm0mgV5sQTtD/Dhx lznhrzd52GlGXXIYE+0jbs2oKaPnSOWSXVWGID9QivEdUj2S2B+rBG2oss2Q8nDjSt ImiVvaCcPCsK8TglPwVVnVb4x4MorkpuPRyyRVogkSFxcEfbYlOAaGtCjFdw6XehkZ IFnt4itGgTpMm5toXkUwxQJQtyRkCdNXsD8oEmoU2ADzpQyH17bdgIKxGb/ZgfD2DO gRq55hhCf2C9g==
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C2561801F for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:04:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7928F1AE for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:04:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFpG3gfyBvE-UdO8m0vyY7yT_3ps0D-7WKmKMS34D7u8M_3LcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <176824138819.764059.17372501962377307239@dt-datatracker-5656579b89-r5kdq> <CAFpG3gfyBvE-UdO8m0vyY7yT_3ps0D-7WKmKMS34D7u8M_3LcQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.8+dev; Emacs 30.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0;<'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:04:07 -0500
Message-ID: <19799.1769115847@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Message-ID-Hash: YJESZ5SW7NS5ETGCUUFF4WR2YPMMSMZ6
X-Message-ID-Hash: YJESZ5SW7NS5ETGCUUFF4WR2YPMMSMZ6
X-MailFrom: mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-ipsec.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [IPsec] Re: Call for adoption: draft-wang-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo-03 (Ends 2026-02-09)
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/HB5VqaEu-duHdGqjvcht5cEKK88>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipsec>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:ipsec-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:ipsec-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ipsec-leave@ietf.org>

I have read draft-wang-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo-03.

I support adoption.  I am not sure the WG has a clear overall strategy.

I haven't done a detailed comparison to the ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem document.

If we are going to have a document-per-major algorithm, then I would like to
suggest that they have very similiar table of contents.
I also don't think we need so much motherhood text in the introduction of
either document.  (Surely CFRG or PQUIP documents that say it all)

From what I understand, both mlkem and frodo-kem will first do a
quantum-vulnerable (I like to call them "DISCO era" rather than "legacy")
exchange.  {I think the use of the term "regular key exchange" is wrong}
Then they use IKE_INTERMEDIATE in order to be able to transport the bigger
keys/key agreements.

Neither document has any test vectors that I could see.
I guess they will be big :-(


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status