Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Thu, 22 Jan 2026 16:04:07 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Richardson To: ipsec@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <176824138819.764059.17372501962377307239@dt-datatracker-5656579b89-r5kdq> 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 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: =?utf-8?q?=5BIPsec=5D_Re=3A_Call_for_adoption=3A_draft-wang-ipsecme-hybrid-k?= =?utf-8?q?em-ikev2-frodo-03_=28Ends_2026-02-09=29?= List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=20what 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 :-( =2D- Michael Richardson . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti= ng ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmlykMcACgkQgItw+93Q 3WUEaQgAvCZsMwVNM02Sp3KKphEPSBe2JwMXLMcg2v77wjFaah6wPxrRcxGU2oMa 2JZXv3Lds+ms9c0IBMeEbCVwSbHxHgiH0FDUQn8+NemxSE2BrFmgYA548oqLaMyt aS38fkRRbEBbBmpLVZeU2NixRGAckBv6ObMc2MQedsX3NApCo58M0QVc9hAf5HdG UTRnaESlw3yY+ZjIUVlo4F5vVixxB08+46kb3EABxA2Rf/gTM3Op4S7GNYymQZfq Hi5bskvzPcBX2gWFNafVF9+C+OgCKUhCf8SJj46y3mw/WwFRvfxAlHj/VthjyxIg vXFqjutljzUvJ8crqBlh+F6lQIs1gA== =IYzU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--