[TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt
Sun Shuzhou <sunshuzhou@huawei.com> Thu, 27 March 2025 10:10 UTC
Return-Path: <sunshuzhou@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D23131CCED for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, 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
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 8hQdBXlLf770 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E429C131CCE2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 03:10:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.216]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZNfTk5sP2z6M4dj for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:07:22 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.224]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A327414050C for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:10:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemn200018.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.141) by lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:10:51 +0000
Received: from kwepemj100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.195.252) by kwepemn200018.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:10:49 +0800
Received: from kwepemj100007.china.huawei.com ([7.202.195.252]) by kwepemj100007.china.huawei.com ([7.202.195.252]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:10:49 +0800
From: Sun Shuzhou <sunshuzhou@huawei.com>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdufAFRXldEILcuNRUO9j/CsOLN94Q==
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:10:49 +0000
Message-ID: <040b446d9acd4aa5a5ebf3af1b931a05@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.241.157]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_040b446d9acd4aa5a5ebf3af1b931a05huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: 4IMWH6HLSBXOJS5T26SAO7JEBBAYR3SC
X-Message-ID-Hash: 4IMWH6HLSBXOJS5T26SAO7JEBBAYR3SC
X-MailFrom: sunshuzhou@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.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: [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/LIp85r2AAFkg6N7Cdl-SOVvOBG4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>
Hi, I have read this draft and have two questions. 1. X25519MLKEM768 is the concatenation of ML-KEM and X25519. Why SecP256r1MLKEM768/SecP384r1MLKEM1024 use a different order? ML-KEM part comes after the EC share. 2. In Section 3.1.3. Server share: When the SecP256r1MLKEM768 group is negotiated, ... The size of the server share is 1153 bytes (1088 bytes for the ML-KEM part and 65 bytes for secp256r1). When the SecP384r1MLKEM1024 group is negotiated, ... The size of the server share is 1665 bytes (1568 bytes for the ML-KEM part and 97 bytes for secp384r1) If the intended order is (EC part || ML-KEM part), it is more appropriate to write: When the SecP256r1MLKEM768 group is negotiated, ... The size of the server share is 1153 bytes (65 bytes for secp256r1 and 1088 bytes for the ML-KEM part). When the SecP384r1MLKEM1024 group is negotiated, ... The size of the server share is 1665 bytes (97 bytes for secp384r1 and 1568 bytes for the ML-KEM part). Cheers, Shuzhou
- [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.t… internet-drafts
- [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tl… Sun Shuzhou
- [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tl… Viktor Dukhovni
- [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tl… Sun Shuzhou