CFRG had https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cfrg-schwabe-kyber/ , https://bwesterb.github.io/draft-schwabe-cfrg-kyber/draft-cfrg-schwabe-kyber.html for Kyber, but that was for the draft00 versions of Kyber deployed in early TLS 1.3 codepoints. I believe the official spec for ML-KEM will be FIPS 203.
I am not sure we definately need a ML-KEM CFRG doc, although it would be better. We could have a normative reference to an external spec like RFC8422<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8422> which said > The named curves secp256r1, secp384r1, and secp521r1 are > specified in SEC 2 > [SECG-SEC2<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8422#ref-SECG-SEC2>]. These > curves are also recommended in > ANSI X9.62 > [ANSI.X9-62.2005<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8422#ref-ANSI.X9-62.2005>] > and FIPS 186-4 > [FIPS.186-4<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8422#ref-FIPS.186-4>]. Personally, I would prefer to have a ratified RFC like Scott. But in all honesty, I would not want it if it means we have to wait 2-3 years without codepoints in order to get a CFRG document ratified and then an IPSECME document ratified. From: Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven...@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 2:43 PM To: Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluhrer=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org; c...@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [IPsec] Re: draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 1:51 PM Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <sfluhrer=40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40cisco....@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: I (and I don’t believe I am alone in this) would like to see an ML-KEM RFC for IKE; how can we make it happen? From what I see, the next step (now that the authors have updated it to specify the final version of ML-KEM) would be having it adopted by the working group (and while there are a number of steps past that, I don’t know if those can proceed before this initial step). Is this something that can be done before Dublin? Is CFRG going to have an "how to use ML-KEM in IETF protocols" document, like it did with RFC 7748 and RFC 7539 ? I would personally feel much better if there was such a guidance document, before we finalize the specification at the various protocols itself. Paul
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
