Hi Vukasin,
Dear authors and ipsecme WG,
I like the draft very much. I have some small suggestions:
- "1. Notes of Change" section compares the changes to
"draft-ietf-ipsecme-kem-auth-ikev2*" document, I believe that is a typo and you
mean "draft-ietf-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo*".
These are typos, thanks for catching.
- "4.3. Comparison to ML-KEM" subsection says "The performance of FrodoKEM is
not as good as ML-KEM. As shown in Table 1, ...", where in Table 1 the private
key, public key and ciphertext sizes are listed. The wording "performance of
FrodoKEM" makes me believe the software/hardware performance of the FrodoKEM's
algorithms is not as good as ML-KEM. I suggest changing the wording to
something like "space efficiency", or "data overhead", or something third.
Note: I am making this suggestion without even looking at the software/hardware
performance of FrodoKEM and ML-KEM algorithms, and am just noticing the
unclarity between the sentence and the table.
Thank you, we will clarify this.
I followed yesterday's CFRG meeting, and a couple of messages in the chat
mentioned FrodoKEM, and I had some thoughts/questions (as an occasional
participant in ipsecme, cfrg and IETF) that someone on the list may be able to
give their opinion/answer on (I am paraphrasing the questions from my memory
from yesterday):
- There was a message saying cfrg FrodoKEM draft by FrodoKEM team, which is now
in draft-ietf-ipsecme-hybrid-kem-ikev2-frodo-02 as a *normative* reference, was
rejected by cfrg. I tried searching the cfrg mailing list but didn't find any
messages (e.g. from the chairs) saying the cfrg will not pursue the
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-longa-cfrg-frodokem/
My understanding of what the CFGRG chairs’ said at the session is that
the CFRG has no plans to adopt the FrodoKEM draft right now, not that it was
rejected.
- There were 1 or 2 messages saying that cfrg/IETF should aim to standardize
(or give guidance in case of cfrg) algorithms that are of importance for
international community, and not follow suggestions of national standardization
bodies. I was puzzled because that made me think the ML-KEM (suggested by a
nation A standardization body) was somehow the sole KEM important for
international community, and that IETF (in the context of the chat discussion
during the meeting, where only ipsecme was mentioned as a WG that has
FrodoKEM-related draft) should not spend time on FrodoKEM (suggested by nation
B standardization body)?? My point here is that I think ipsecme should still
continue with the effort of publishing this draft (in the hope the reference
issues get resolved in the meantime, and also assuming there's enough interest
from the WG).
I agree.
Regards,
Valery.
Cheers,
Vukasin Karadzic
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
