Thom Wiggers <[email protected]> wrote: > Title: > I do strongly feel that “hybrid” should be removed from the title of > the draft, because I think it will lead to confusion on what this draft > achieves in terms of security. Namely, “hybrid” commonly means PQ/T > hybrids, but this draft can be used perfectly fine with ML-KEM-512 in > the IKE_SA_INIT key exchange. While I do agree that this would still > give us a (PQ/PQ) “hybrid”, I don’t think that this matches > expectations surrounding the word “hybrid”.
I agree strongly.
RFC9370 defines multiple key exchanges, so linking it in that way makes more
sense.
> I don’t think “hybrid” adds much either, other than (to experts)
> hinting that this needs to be done in IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges. So if
> that is the intended message, I suggest renaming the draft to something
> like “FrodoKEM for IKE_INTERMEDIATE IKEv2 Key Exchanges”.
Or, maybe "Using FrodoKEM in Multiple IKEv2 Key Exchanges"
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
