Re: [openpgp] The Argon2 proposal seems incomplete (Draft 6)

[Bruce Walzer <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 09:16:40PM +0000, Daniel Huigens wrote:
> If you have an issue with the Argon2 RFC, that's fine but we can't do
> much about that here. Again, if you want to propose some text to make
> the recommendation in the crypto refresh clearer, feel free to do so,
> I think it would be welcome.

Currently in draft 6 we find this:

>For the recommended values of t, p and m, see Section 4 of [RFC9106].

So currently just informational. You could do this:

>The values of t, p and m, from section 4 of [RFC9106] are RECOMMENDED.

... but section 4 makes several suggestions for those values so this
wouldn't be an actual recommendation. It implies that it might be best
to tune the parameters which would be obviously absurd for the OpenPGP
case.

There is nothing wrong with the Argon2 RFC. There is something wrong
with the Argon2 section of draft 6. It is not a problem with the
wording. This is an incompleteness problem. If it is really the case
that we want to leave things completely undefined then we should
explicitly state that. Things are currently not just confusing, they
are misleading.

Bruce