Re: [lamps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02.txt

Daniel Van Geest <daniel.vangeest.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 26 February 2024 11:00 UTC

Return-Path: <daniel.vangeest.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spasm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A745C14F68C for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:00:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Y96Yb4JCv6E for <spasm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE268C14F619 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:00:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-33d855caf7dso600654f8f.0 for <spasm@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:00:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708945243; x=1709550043; darn=ietf.org; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:to:from :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L3/J8fly7Ng2nY7IkbcYMvXa51XAHGDLXLb6pXLdDC8=; b=WGw/xmRX5myAuIAZjaybnw+b0Llu3QofSZbha+peYbJ9rKlzMZoEswds5ZMkf6HcdY OWpeE4Mq4vTjqDLNyReUkDvENDv6vxaiFEaTFfKf2nB/XMAGAOs3oN+q+8xfsSh0zt1J u2/YnIGIC+/2s02x+x4PDVKJAygr9gUFTVFauAjDMh0rkokyqv5i21lBsP4fAfHO4/x8 /jnoqpUmw4i6eqmF7+Y0vVQAUiX2QQCTUE0UM49DoMCPE60mTg28CdL9dSKFQ56A2VmA X5v+eE6vvxtYqu8wPvs1Mr+7eZU1BKamwDWnclQt4FQ+ehcQD5tFW7U1O1afxjsRQRv9 q7+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708945243; x=1709550043; h=content-language:thread-index:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:message-id:date:subject:in-reply-to:references:to:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=L3/J8fly7Ng2nY7IkbcYMvXa51XAHGDLXLb6pXLdDC8=; b=VyV3Qt7Nn1jrcEhpSn/uXPku/FvO0uQikmwJvrwmgRbViAronuwqgtbJeZOVa/+KOK r3e2OyNIpnvcfe8QeHmk/d800zu8HX/m9r6Iqv12zGqCdy5hyVWfsoMjAz3O4UqM9ffW 0DomnM4cg8K571hxWQPDfDGw11hTMtywUBMTXJKjNynGNLhUIZ9Z0R+yeGXgTQsXxzv1 JlWp0RJtrreNklJ1pstZUKg0UV2amu50D7hCP/ra9BoWG4s0KXDQjKKWqRpE5PFXmp5r GVGxY3dBb/L4202dAsFHYzp+/dDwqQFiVnH0PwOHjzY4WnlKwhubis/ej+/EpzhFsMzn +mpw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyzKLc+vTm64at7nFGq3G0iee0xE/mvw3+EJP9DY47JcnuKZ7Oj QVELalaldH9L1VV2U/3j5cyXIMkr+0ZDuk9URy3jHFzkarHK+2DZ0uPLZoWj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHaMMtahuhnFHe6ReS5HeVrUwhfDNxURdBZEghBzalE6IqCkTfPU2F4XXC3NYAJqUmLFIrE+A==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:59c6:0:b0:33d:5983:d21c with SMTP id v6-20020a5d59c6000000b0033d5983d21cmr4660522wry.6.1708945242868; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPUE07G7D ([2001:8a0:6a10:d300:f9e0:4a5:253e:4898]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bk22-20020a0560001d9600b0033dd4673a4asm3937453wrb.71.2024.02.26.03.00.42 for <spasm@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Feb 2024 03:00:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Daniel Van Geest <daniel.vangeest.ietf@gmail.com>
To: spasm@ietf.org
References: <170894361194.40554.6997007160465444438@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <170894361194.40554.6997007160465444438@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:00:48 -0000
Message-ID: <035b01da68a3$0eb2d590$2c1880b0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQHUzCtlnT8gALVwp6gEcGV48eV+F7EnqN6w
Content-Language: en-ca
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/-nSfotK5qe9tOZK3M4rGfNFI9cY>
Subject: Re: [lamps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02.txt
X-BeenThere: spasm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: This is the mail list for the LAMPS Working Group <spasm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spasm/>
List-Post: <mailto:spasm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm>, <mailto:spasm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 11:00:45 -0000

Hi,

This version is a significant rewrite to fully use KEMRecipientInfo from
cms-kemri (remove KEM-TRANS).  The rewrite follows the structure of
rfc59990bis.

During the review of the draft it was pointed out that Section 1.4 "CMS
KEMRecipientInfo Processing Summary" is basically a less complete version of
Section 2 " KEM Processing Overview" from cms-kemri, and could be confusing
to readers.  I based this section on the same one from Section 1.3 of
rfc5990bis.  Does the WG find this section useful, or should it be removed
here (and presumably in rfc5990bis)?

Some things left to do on this draft, besides obviously waiting for FIPS203
to publish OIDs:
- wait for KMAC-based KDF OIDs and switch to those as MTI instead of
HKDF-with-SHA3
- harmonize Security Considerations between this draft and
draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates
- add examples
- add ASN.1 to ASN.1 section, or remove ASN.1 section? No new ASN.1 is
defined in this draft, so is an ASN.1 section needed?

Thanks,
Daniel, Julien, Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Spasm <spasm-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2024 10:34 AM
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: spasm@ietf.org
Subject: [lamps] I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02.txt

Internet-Draft draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02.txt is now available. It is a
work item of the Limited Additional Mechanisms for PKIX and SMIME (LAMPS) WG
of the IETF.

   Title:   Use of ML-KEM in the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)
   Authors: Julien Prat
            Mike Ounsworth
            Daniel Van Geest
   Name:    draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02.txt
   Pages:   15
   Dates:   2024-02-26

Abstract:

   The Module-Lattice-based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM)
   Algorithm is a one-pass (store-and-forward) cryptographic mechanism
   for an originator to securely send keying material to a recipient
   using the recipient's ML-KEM public key.  Three parameters sets for
   the ML-KEM Algorithm are specified by NIST in [FIPS203-ipd] [EDNOTE:
   Change to [FIPS203] when it is published].  In order of increasing
   security strength (and decreasing performance), these parameter sets
   are ML-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024.  This document specifies
   the conventions for using ML-KEM with the Cryptographic Message
   Syntax (CMS) using KEMRecipientInfo as specified in
   [I-D.ietf-lamps-cms-kemri].

The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber/

There is also an HTML version available at:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02.html

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-lamps-cms-kyber-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts


_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list
Spasm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spasm