Combiner function for hybrid key encapsulation mechanisms (Hybrid KEMs)
draft-ounsworth-cfrg-kem-combiners-05
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Mike Ounsworth , Aron Wussler , Stavros Kousidis | ||
| Last updated | 2024-01-31 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-ounsworth-cfrg-kem-combiners-05
CFRG M. Ounsworth
Internet-Draft Entrust
Intended status: Informational A. Wussler
Expires: 3 August 2024 Proton
S. Kousidis
BSI
31 January 2024
Combiner function for hybrid key encapsulation mechanisms (Hybrid KEMs)
draft-ounsworth-cfrg-kem-combiners-05
Abstract
The migration to post-quantum cryptography often calls for performing
multiple key encapsulations in parallel and then combining their
outputs to derive a single shared secret.
This document defines a comprehensible and easy to implement Keccak-
based KEM combiner to join an arbitrary number of key shares, that is
compatible with NIST SP 800-56Cr2 [SP800-56C] when viewed as a key
derivation function. The combiners defined here are practical split-
key PRFs and are CCA-secure as long as at least one of the ingredient
KEMs is.
About This Document
This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.
Status information for this document may be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ounsworth-cfrg-kem-combiners/.
Discussion of this document takes place on the Crypto Forum Research
Group (CFRG) Research Group mailing list (mailto:cfrg@ietf.org),
which is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/.
Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg/.
Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
https://github.com/EntrustCorporation/draft-ounsworth-cfrg-kem-
combiners.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 August 2024.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Key Encapsulation Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. KEM/PSK hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. PQ/Traditional hybrid KEMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. KEM-based AKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. KEM Combiner construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Length encoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. k_i construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3. Note on the order of parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4. Protocol binding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Practical instantiations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. KMAC based construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2. Hash-and-counter based construction . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
1. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
"OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP
14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
capitals, as shown here.
This document is consistent with all terminology defined in
[I-D.driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology].
1.1. Key Encapsulation Mechanisms
For the purposes of this document, we consider a Key Encapsulation
Mechanism (KEM) to be any asymmetric cryptographic scheme comprised
of algorithms satisfying the following interfaces [PQCAPI].
def kemKeyGen() -> (pk, sk)
def kemEncaps(pk) -> (ct, ss)
def kemDecaps(ct, sk) -> ss
where pk is public key, sk is secret key, ct is the ciphertext
representing an encapsulated key, and ss is the shared secret.
KEMs are typically used in cases where two parties, hereby referred
to as the "encapsulater" and the "decapsulater", wish to establish a
shared secret via public key cryptography, where the decapsulater has
an asymmetric key pair and has previously shared the public key with
the encapsulater.
2. Introduction
The need for a KEM combiner function arises in three different
contexts within IETF security protocols:
1. KEM / PSK hybrids where the output of a KEM is combined with a
static pre-shared key.
2. Post-quantum / traditional hybrid KEMs where output of a post-
quantum KEM is combined with the output of a classical key
transport or key exchange algorithm.
3. KEM-based authenticated key exchanges (AKEs) where the output of
two or more KEMs performed in different directions are combined.
This document normalizes a mechanism for combining the output of two
or more KEMs.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
2.1. KEM/PSK hybrids
As a post-quantum stop-gap, several IETF protocols have added
extensions to allow for mixing a pre-shared key (PSK) into an (EC)DH
based key exchange. Examples include CMS [RFC8696] and IKEv2
[RFC8784].
2.2. PQ/Traditional hybrid KEMs
A post-quantum / traditional hybrid key encapsulation mechanism
(hybrid KEM) as defined in [I-D.driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology] as
PQ/T Hybrid Key Encapsulation Mechanism: A Key Encapsulation
Mechanism (KEM) made up of two or more component KEM algorithms
where at least one is a post-quantum algorithm and at least one is
a traditional algorithm.
Building a PQ/T hybrid KEM requires a secure function which combines
the output of both component KEMs to form a single output. Several
IETF protocols are adding PQ/T hybrid KEM mechanisms as part of their
overall post-quantum migration strategies, examples include TLS 1.3
[I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design], IKEv2
[I-D.ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke], X.509; PKIX; CMS
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-kem], OpenPGP [I-D.wussler-openpgp-pqc],
JOSE / COSE (CITE once Orie's drafts are up).
The traditional algorithm may in fact be a key transport or key
agreement scheme, but since simple transformations exist to turn both
of those schemes into KEMs, this document assumes that all
cryptograhpic algorithms satisfy the KEM interface described in
Section 1.1.
2.3. KEM-based AKE
The need for a KEM-based authenticated key establishment arises, for
example, when two communicating parties each have long-term KEM keys
(for example in X.509 certificates), and wish to involve both KEM
keys in deriving a mutually-authenticated shared secret. In
particular this will arise for any protocol that needs to provide
post-quantum replacements for static-static (Elliptic Curve) Diffie-
Hellman mechanisms. Examples include a KEM replacement for CMP's
DHBasedMac [I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-updates].
3. KEM Combiner construction
A KEM combiner is a function that takes in two or more shared secrets
ss_i and returns a combined shared secret ss.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
ss = kemCombiner(ss_1, ss_2, ..., ss_n)
This document assumes that shared secrets are the output of a KEM,
but without loss of generality they MAY also be any other source of
cryptographic key material, such as pre-shared keys (PSKs), with PQ/
PSK being a quantum-safe migration strategy being made available by
some protocols, see for example IKEv2 in [RFC8784].
In general it is desirable to use a split-key PRF as a KEM combiner,
meaning that the combiner has the properties of a PRF when keyed by
any of its single inputs. The following simple yet generic
construction can be used in all IETF protocols that need to combine
the output of two or more KEMs:
ss = KDF(counter || k_1 || ... || k_n || fixedInfo, outputBits)
Figure 1: general KEM combiner construction
where:
* KDF represents a suitable choice of a cryptographic key derivation
function,
* k_i represent the constant-length input keys and is discussed in
Section 3.2,
* fixedInfo is some protocol-specific KDF binding,
* counter parameter is instantiation-specific and is discussed in
Section 4.
* outputBits determines the length of the output keying material,
* || represents concatenation.
In Section 4 several possible practical instantiations are listed
that are in compliance with NIST SP-800 56Cr2 [SP800-56C]. The
shared secret ss MAY be used directly as a symmetric key, for example
as a MAC key or as a Key Encryption Key (KEK).
The values k_i can be processed individually, without requiring to
store intermediate values except for the hash state and the protocol
binding information required for fixedInfo.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
3.1. Length encoding
All variable length string inputs s MUST be suffixed with the length,
right-encoded using the rlen function, having the following
construction:
Validity Conditions: 0 <= len(s) < 2^{2040}
1. Let x = len(s)
1. Let n be the smallest positive integer for which 2^{8n} > x
2. Let x_1, x_2, ..., x_n be the base-256 encoding of x satisfying:
x = sum 28(n-i)x i, for i = 1 to n
3. Let O_i = uint8(x_i), for i = 1 to n
4. Let O_{n+1} = uint8(n)
5. rlen(s) = O_1 || O_2 || ... || O_n || O_{n+1}
This is compatible with the right_encode construction presented in
[SP800-185], and encodes the length of the string s as a byte string
in a way that can be unambiguously parsed from the end.
Right encoding is preferred to left encoding, since it provides the
same security guarantees but allows encoding ciphertext where length
is a priori unknown.
3.2. k_i construction
Following the guidance of Giacon et al. [GHP18], we wish for a KEM
combiner that is CCA-secure as long as at least one of the ingredient
KEMs is. In order to protect against chosen ciphertext attacks, it
is necessary to include both the shared secret ss_i and its
corresponding ciphertext ct_i. If both the secret share ss_i and the
ciphertext ct_i are constant length, then k_i MAY be constructed
concatenating the two values:
k_i = ct_i || ss_i
If ss_i or ct_i are not guaranteed to have constant length, it is
REQUIRED to append the rlen encoded length when concatenating, prior
to inclusion in the overall construction described in Figure 1:
k_i = ct_i || rlen(ct_i) || ss_i || rlen(ss_i)
Any protocols making use of this construction MUST either right-
encode the length of all inputs ss_i and ct_i, or justify that any
inputs will always be fixed length. In the case of a PSK the
associated ciphertext is the empty string.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
Including the ciphertext guarantees that the combined kem is IND-CCA2
secure as long as one of the ingredient KEMs is, as stated by
[GHP18].
The ciphertext precedes the secret share, as memory-constrained
devices can write c_i into the hash state and no further caching is
required when streaming.
3.3. Note on the order of parameters
For a two-KEM instantiation, the construction is
KDF(counter || ct_1 || rlen(ct_1) || ss_1 || rlen(ss_1) || ct_2 ||
rlen(ct_2) || ss_2 || rlen(ss_2) || fixedInfo, outputBits)
The order of parameters is chosen intentionally to facilitate
streaming implementations on devices that lack sufficient memory to
hold the entirety of ct_1 or ct_2.
This construction aims to have two streaming-friendly properties.
First, ct_i can be written to KDF's update interface as it is
received and does not need to be stored, finally adding its
corresponding ss_i once it is available. And second, the first KEM
can be processed in its entirety and written to KDF's update
interface before beginning to process the second KEM.
3.4. Protocol binding
The fixedInfo parameter is a fixed-format string containing some
context-specific information. This serves to prevent cross-context
attacks by making this key derivation unique to its protocol context.
The fixedInfo string MUST have a definite structure depending on the
protocol where all parts strictly defined by the protocol
specification.
fixedInfo = fixedInfo || s
Each fixed-length input string f MAY be directly used as input:
s = f ; f is guaranteed to have fixed length
Each variable-length input string v MUST be suffixed with a right-
encoding of the length:
s = v || rlen(v) ; v may have variable length
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
fixedInfo MUST NOT include the shared secrets and ciphertexts, as
they are already represented in the KDF input.
The parameter fixedInfo MAY contain any of the following information:
* Public information about the communication parties, such as their
identifiers.
* The public keys or certificates contributed by each party to the
key-agreement transaction.
* Other public information shared between communication parties
before or during the transaction, such as nonces.
* An indication of the protocol or application employing the key-
derivation method.
* Protocol-related information, such as a label or session
identifier.
* An indication of the key-agreement scheme and/or key-derivation
method used.
* An indication of the domain parameters associated with the
asymmetric key pairs employed for key establishment.
* An indication of other parameter or primitive choices.
* An indication of how the derived keying material should be parsed,
including an indication of which algorithm(s) will use the
(parsed) keying material.
This is a non-comprehensive list, further information can be found in
paragraph 5.8.2 of NIST SP800-56Ar3 [SP800-56A].
4. Practical instantiations
The KDF must be instantiated with cryptographically-secure choices
for KDF. The following are RECOMMENDED Keccak-based instatiations,
but other choices MAY be made for example to allow for future
cryptographic agility. A protocol using a different instantiation
MUST justify that it will behave as a split-key PRF, as required in
[GHP18].
Each instance defines a function to be used as KDF, a hashSize to
determine parameter size, and optionally a counter:
1. KDF = KMAC128, with hashSize = 128 bit.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
2. KDF = KMAC256, with hashSize = 256 bit.
3. KDF = SHA3-256, with hashSize = 256 bit.
4. KDF = SHA3-512, with hashSize = 512 bit.
As justified in the security considerations, we recommend only
Keccak-based instantiations because assuming there are no weaknesses
found in the Keccak permutation, it behaves as a split-key PRF that
can be keyed by any input k_i. SHAKE is also not included in the
list as it is not allowed by [SP800-56A] section 7, and does not
provide any implementation advantage over KMAC.
KMAC constructions are RECOMMENDED over SHA-3, as KMAC offers a
simple cSHAKE-based construction, with the advantage of returning an
unrelated output when requesting a different outputBits KEK length.
4.1. KMAC based construction
Options 1 and 2 are KMAC-based, as specified in NIST SP 800-185
[SP800-185]. To instantiate the function:
* The context S MUST be the utf-8 string "KDF".
* The key K MUST be a context-specific string of at least hashSize
bits, and it MAY be used as an additional option to perform
context separation, in scenarios where fixedInfo is not
sufficient.
* The parameter counter MUST be the fixed value 0x00000001,
corresponding to a 32-bit binary big-endian representation of the
number zero.
- This aligns with [SP800-56C] where counter is initialized to
0x00000000 is Section 4.1 Step 3, but is first incremented in
6.1 before being used in a hash in 6.2.
To derive a shared secret ss of desired length, KMAC is called a
single time with the input string X defined in Section 3 and length L
being outputBits. This is compatible with the one-step KDF
definition given in NIST SP800-56Cr2 [SP800-56C], Section 4.
4.2. Hash-and-counter based construction
Options 3 and 4 instantiate the KDF using SHA3, specified in NIST
FIPS 202 [FIPS202]. To generate an outputBits long secret share ss:
* the counter MUST be initialized with the value 0x00000001.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
* The hash is performed over the string defined in Section 3, and
repeated ceil(outputBits/hashSize) times. For each iteration the
counter MUST be increased by 0x01.
* The strings are concatenated ordered by counter.
* The leftmost outputBits are returned as ss.
An implementation MUST NOT overflow and reuse the counter and an
error MUST be returned when producing more than 2^32 consecutive
hashes.
5. IANA Considerations
None.
6. Security Considerations
The proposed instantiations in Section 4 are practical split-key PRFs
since this specification limits to the use of Keccak-based
constructions. The sponge construction was proven to be
indifferentiable from a random oracle [BDPA08]. More precisely, for
a given capacity c the indifferentiability proof shows that assuming
there are no weaknesses found in the Keccak permutation, an attacker
has to make an expected number of 2^(c/2) calls to the permutation to
tell Keccak from a random oracle. For a random oracle, a difference
in only a single bit gives an unrelated, uniformly random output.
Hence, to be able to distinguish a key k, derived from shared keys
k_i from a random bit string, an adversary has to correctly guess all
key shares k_i entirely.
The proposed construction in Section 3 with the instantiations in
Section 4 preserves IND-CCA2 of any of its ingredient KEMs, i.e. the
newly formed combined KEM is IND-CCA2 secure as long as at least one
of the ingredient KEMs is. Indeed, the above stated
indifferentiability from a random oracle qualifies Keccak as a split-
key pseudorandom function as defined in [GHP18]. That is, Keccak
behaves like a random function if at least one input shared secret
ss_i is picked uniformly at random. Our construction can thus be
seen as an instantiation of the IND-CCA2 preserving Example 3 in
Figure 1 of [GHP18], up to some reordering of input shared secrets
ss_i and ciphertexts ct_i and their potential compression H(ss_i ||
ct_i) by a cryptographic hash function.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
7.2. Informative References
[ADKPRY22] Aviram, N., Dowling, B., Komargodski, I., Paterson, K. G.,
Ronen, E., and E. Yogev, "Practical (Post-Quantum) Key
Combiners from One-Wayness and Applications to TLS.",
n.d., <https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/065>.
[BDPA08] Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peters, M., and G. Assche, "On
the Indifferentiability of the Sponge Construction", 2008,
<https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78967-3_11>.
[ETSI-QHKE]
"Quantum-safe Hybrid Key Exchanges", ETSI TS 103 744
V1.1.1 , December 2020, <https://www.etsi.org/deliver/
etsi_ts/103700_103799/103744/01.01.01_60/
ts_103744v010101p.pdf>.
[FIPS202] "SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and Extendable-
Output Functions", Federal information Processing
Standards Publication (FIPS) 202 , 2015,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.FIPS.202>.
[GHP18] Giacon, F., Heuer, F., and B. Poettering, "KEM Combiners",
2018, <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76578-5_7>.
[I-D.driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology]
D, F., "Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid
Schemes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
driscoll-pqt-hybrid-terminology-02, 7 March 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-driscoll-pqt-
hybrid-terminology-02>.
[I-D.ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke]
Tjhai, C., Tomlinson, M., Bartlett, G., Fluhrer, S., Van
Geest, D., Garcia-Morchon, O., and V. Smyslov, "Multiple
Key Exchanges in IKEv2", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-12, 1 December 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipsecme-
ikev2-multiple-ke-12>.
[I-D.ietf-lamps-cmp-updates]
Brockhaus, H., von Oheimb, D., and J. Gray, "Certificate
Management Protocol (CMP) Updates", Work in Progress,
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-cmp-updates-23, 29 June
2022, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-
lamps-cmp-updates-23>.
[I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]
Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key
exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-09, 7 September 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
hybrid-design-09>.
[I-D.ounsworth-pq-composite-kem]
Ounsworth, M. and J. Gray, "Composite KEM For Use In
Internet PKI", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
ounsworth-pq-composite-kem-02, 29 May 2023,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ounsworth-pq-
composite-kem-02>.
[I-D.wussler-openpgp-pqc]
Kousidis, S., Roth, J., Strenzke, F., and A. Wussler,
"Post-Quantum Cryptography in OpenPGP", Work in Progress,
Internet-Draft, draft-wussler-openpgp-pqc-04, 30 January
2024, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-
wussler-openpgp-pqc-04>.
[PQCAPI] Project, N. P.-Q. C., "PQC - API notes", November 2022,
<https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Projects/Post-Quantum-
Cryptography/documents/example-files/api-notes.pdf>.
[RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>.
[RFC8411] Schaad, J. and R. Andrews, "IANA Registration for the
Cryptographic Algorithm Object Identifier Range",
RFC 8411, DOI 10.17487/RFC8411, August 2018,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8411>.
[RFC8696] Housley, R., "Using Pre-Shared Key (PSK) in the
Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS)", RFC 8696,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8696, December 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8696>.
[RFC8784] Fluhrer, S., Kampanakis, P., McGrew, D., and V. Smyslov,
"Mixing Preshared Keys in the Internet Key Exchange
Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for Post-quantum Security",
RFC 8784, DOI 10.17487/RFC8784, June 2020,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8784>.
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
[SP800-185]
Kelsey, J., Chan, S., and R. Perln, "SHA-3 Derived
Functions: cSHAKE, KMAC, TupleHash, and ParallelHash",
NIST Special Publication 800-185 , 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-185>.
[SP800-56A]
Barker, E., Chen, L., Roginsky, A., Vassilev, A., and R.
Davis, "Recommendation for Pair-Wise Key-Establishment
Schemes Using Discrete Logarithm Cryptography", NIST
Special Publication 800-56A , April 2018,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Ar3>.
[SP800-56C]
Barker, E., Chen, L., and R. Davis, "Recommendation for
Key-Derivation Methods in Key-Establishment Schemes", NIST
Special Publication 800-56C , August 2020,
<https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-56Cr2>.
Acknowledgements
This document incorporates contributions and comments from a large
group of experts. The authors would especially like to acknowledge
the expertise and tireless dedication of the following people, who
attended many long meetings and generated millions of bytes of
electronic mail and VOIP traffic over the past years in pursuit of
this document:
Douglas Stebila, Nimrod Aviram, and Andreas Huelsing.
We are grateful to all, including any contributors who may have been
inadvertently omitted from this list.
This document borrows text from similar documents, including those
referenced below. Thanks go to the authors of those documents.
"Copying always makes things easier and less error prone" -
[RFC8411].
Authors' Addresses
Mike Ounsworth
Entrust Limited
2500 Solandt Road – Suite 100
Ottawa, Ontario K2K 3G5
Canada
Email: mike.ounsworth@entrust.com
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft KEM Combiner January 2024
Aron Wussler
Proton AG
Switzerland
Email: aron@wussler.it
Stavros Kousidis
BSI
Germany
Email: kousidis.ietf@gmail.com
Ounsworth, et al. Expires 3 August 2024 [Page 14]