Subject: Re: [CFRG] draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-04 second research group last call

From: Gilles VAN ASSCHE <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 16:38:54 +0000

Dear all,

As I mentioned at the CFRG meeting at IETF 110, KangarooTwelve can naturally exploit the SIMD instructions designed to accelerate SHA-3 on the latest Apple A14 and M1 processors. I also mentioned preliminary estimations of the performance.

To complement this, now there is code available for this platform [1] and K12 delivers 0.75 cycles/byte for long messages on a single core. This is 1.7 times (resp. 3 times) faster than SHA-256 (resp. SHA-512), also using hardware acceleration [2].

Kind regards,
Gilles

[1] https://github.com/XKCP/K12
[2] https://github.com/dot-asm/cryptogams/blob/master/arm/sha512-armv8.pl

From: CFRG <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Nick Sullivan
Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2021 19:46
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [CFRG] draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-04 second research group last call

Dear CFRG participants,

There haven't been any comments on this second last call. We'd like to encourage anyone who has read the draft (especially these last changes) to reply to the list with any comments in favor of moving this draft forward.

Nick (for the chairs)

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 12:23 PM Nick Sullivan <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
Dear CFRG participants,

After some excellent reviews from the crypto review panel and on the mailing list, the authors have submitted a -04 of the document to address the requested changes. This email commences a 2-week last call for this document that will end on November 9th, 2020:

Given that this document has gone through last call and a crypto panel review, we ask that this last call focus on the changes between drafts -01 and -04:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-03.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-irtf-cfrg-kangarootwelve-04.txt

If you've read the document and think that it is ready (or not ready) for publication as an RFC, please send a message in reply to this email or directly to CFRG chairs ([email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>). If you have detailed comments, these would also be very helpful at this point.

Thank you,
Nick (for the chairs)