gt;>>>>>>>>>>> [1]:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-connolly-cfrg-xwing-kem-07.html#appendix-D
>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]:
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://
n 30. May 2025, at 15:03, Wei-Jun Wang
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> O
> Am 03.08.2025 um 21:56 schrieb Wei-Jun Wang :
>
> The encoding does not necessarily be the seed.
I see, thanks for the clarification. In this case consider this a request to
improve the docs 😉
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Weijun,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for the final standard is understandable. The internals
>>>&g
;>>>>>> merged yet?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to start a draft if you’d like. I'll create a JBS issue
>>>>>>>>>> once we decide we want to include it in the JDK.
>>>&
PI (namely SHAKE256 and ML-KEM’s `KeyGen_internal(d,
z)` [3]). So the question arises whether I can contribute an X-Wing KEM
implementation to the JDK at the current state of the spec?
It's acceptable to use private API inside OpenJDK when you are working on
OpenJDK itself. After all, we creat
the JDK.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have a working set of KeyPairGenerator, KeyFactory and KEM SPI
>>>>>>>>>> including test vectors basically ready - just SHAKE256 currently
>&
;>>>>> Technically the expand step of the KDF API can be used, but
>>>>>>>>> semantically that would be a misuse. Adding a completely new API is
>>>>>>>>> nothing I currently want to work on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Btw I am somewhat familiar with the development process as I have
>>>>>>>> started contributing to the JDK in 2021 on cipher and NIO issues. [1]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>&
to know. Sorry I didn't noticed that earlier.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Weijun
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Sebastian
>>>>>>>
&g
;
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Aoverheadhunter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29. May 2025, at 18:44, Wei-Jun Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Sebastian.
>
at 05:40, Sebastian Stenzel
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the past few months I have been in contact with one of the authors
>>>>>>> of
gt;>>
>>>>>> For the past few months I have been in contact with one of the authors
>>>>>> of two spec drafts for future JOSE encryption standards [1] [2] with the
>>>>>> latter of them relying on X-Wing.
>>>>>>
>>
lly-cfrg-xwing-kem as an RFC. I'm not sure how
>>> familiar you are with the OpenJDK developing process, but in the meantime,
>>> you might find it helpful to read the OpenJDK Developers’ Guide [1] and try
>>> working on something smaller first.
>>>
>>&g
ng-kem as an RFC. I'm not sure how familiar
>> you are with the OpenJDK developing process, but in the meantime, you might
>> find it helpful to read the OpenJDK Developers’ Guide [1] and try working on
>> something smaller first.
>>
>>>
>>
velopers’ Guide [1] and try working on
> something smaller first.
>
>>
>> All the primitives for X-Wing are technically already there in OpenJDK,
>> however two of them are private API (namely SHAKE256 and ML-KEM’s
>> `KeyGen_internal(d, z)` [3]). So the question
yGen_internal(d, z)` [3]). So the question arises whether I can contribute
> an X-Wing KEM implementation to the JDK at the current state of the spec?
It's acceptable to use private API inside OpenJDK when you are working on
OpenJDK itself. After all, we created them for this very purp
arises whether I can contribute an X-Wing KEM
implementation to the JDK at the current state of the spec?
Alternatively, can we make the two mentioned APIs public?
Cheers!
Sebastian
[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-jose-hpke-encrypt/
[2]:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html
18 matches
Mail list logo
