[openpgp] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-nist-bp-comp- 00.txt

Quynh Dang <[email protected]> Thu, 16 Oct 2025 06:13:51 -0400
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.openpgp
Message-ID <CAE3-qLRtcR9qWuhAALoj7=o5nrR=CBwQ+sXftaQcc8hV-+f6pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Andrew,

If the performance of ML-KEM-1024 is acceptable to a user, the user should
use it instead of ML-KEM-768 and ML-KEM-512.

If it is not, the user should use ML-KEM-768 if ML-KEM-768's performance is
acceptable.  If ML-KEM-768's performance is not acceptable, the user should
go with ML-KEM-512. I am confident in ML-KEM-512's security.

In other words, I support the preference of ML-KEM-1024 and ML-KEM-768 over
ML-KEM-512. And, I also support enabling the availability of ML-KEM-512 for
the users who would like better performance.

Regards,
Quynh.

On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 5:25 AM Andrew Gallagher <andrewg=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi, all.
>
> On 10/10/2025 15:05, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Fri, 2025-10-10 at 06:51 +0200, Falko Strenzke wrote:
> >> After the adoption of draft-ietf-openpgp-nist-bp-comp, we would like to
> initiate the discussion about the code points. The draft currently has
> ...
> >> ML-KEM-512+ECDH-NIST-P-256   MAY
> >> ML-KEM-768+ECDH-NIST-P-384   MAY
> >> ML-KEM-1024+ECDH-NIST-P-384  MAY
> >> ML-KEM-768+ECDH-brainpoolP256r1      MAY
> >> ML-KEM-1024+ECDH-brainpoolP384r1     MAY
> ...>> ML-DSA-44+ECDSA-NIST-P-256        MAY
> >> ML-DSA-65+ECDSA-NIST-P-384   MAY
> >> ML-DSA-87+ECDSA-NIST-P-384   MAY
> >> ML-DSA-65+ECDSA-brainpoolP256r1      MAY
> >> ML-DSA-87+ECDSA-brainpoolP384r1      MAY
> ...
> > Is it actually worth supporting the 256 bit curves at all?
> >
> > If we drop them we can reduce the code points to just 3 + 3
> > (or 4+4 if you want to pair the mid-strenght PQC algorithms with
> > brainpool 384)
>
> I have a similar question, but for the post-quantum components. During
> the discussion process for draft-pqc, we dropped ML-KEM-512 and
> ML-DSA-44 from consideration. Partly this was due to doubts about the
> true cryptographic strength of small lattices (particularly ML-KEM-512),
> which I don't believe have ever been resolved. Should the same
> precautionary principle not be applied here, even if only for consistency?
>
> Thanks,
> A
>
> _______________________________________________
> openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>

_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]