RFC 9867 | Enhanced Mixing PSKs in IKEv2 for PQ Sec | November 2025
Smyslov | Standards Track | [Page]

Stream:
  Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
RFC:
  9867
Category:
  Standards Track
Published:
  November 2025
ISSN:
  2070-1721
Author:
  V. Smyslov
  ELVIS-PLUS

# RFC 9867

# Mixing Preshared Keys in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE and CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchanges of the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) for Post-Quantum Security

## Abstract

An Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2) extension defined in RFC 8784 allows IPsec traffic to be protected against someone storing VPN communications and decrypting them later, when (and if) a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC) is available. The protection is achieved by means of a Post-quantum Preshared Key (PPK) that is mixed into the session keys calculation. However, this protection does not cover an initial IKEv2 Security Association (SA), which might be unacceptable in some scenarios. This specification defines an alternative way to provide protection against quantum computers, which is similar to the solution defined in RFC 8784, but it also protects the initial IKEv2 SA.¶

RFC 8784 assumes that PPKs are static and thus they are only used when an initial IKEv2 SA is created. If a fresh PPK is available before the IKE SA expires, then the only way to use it is to delete the current IKE SA and create a new one from scratch, which is inefficient. This specification defines a way to use PPKs in active IKEv2 SAs for creating additional IPsec SAs and rekey operations.¶

## Status of This Memo

This is an Internet Standards Track document.¶

This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG). Further information on Internet Standards is available in Section 2 of RFC 7841.¶

Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9867.¶

## Copyright Notice

Copyright (c) 2025 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. Code Components extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.¶

## 1. Introduction

The Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2), defined in [RFC7296], is used in the IPsec architecture for performing authenticated key exchange. An extension to IKEv2 for mixing preshared keys for post-quantum security is defined in [RFC8784]. This extension allows today's IPsec traffic to be protected against future quantum computers. The protection is achieved by means of using a Post-quantum Preshared Key (PPK) that is mixed into the session keys calculation. At the time this extension was being developed, the consensus in the IPsecME WG was that it was more important to protect the IPsec traffic than the IKE traffic. It was believed that information transferred over IKE SA (including peers' identities) is less important and that extending the protection to also cover the initial IKE SA would require serious modifications to the core IKEv2 protocol. One of the goals was to minimize such changes. It was also decided that immediate rekey of initial IKE SA would add this protection to the new IKE SA (albeit it would not provide protection of the identity of the peers).¶

However, in some situations, it is desirable to have this protection for the IKE SA from the very beginning, when an initial IKE SA is created. An example of such a situation is the Group Key Management protocol using IKEv2, defined in [RFC9838]. In this protocol, the group policy and session keys are transferred from a Group Controller/Key Server (GCKS) to the Group Members (GMs) immediately once an initial IKE SA is created. While session keys are additionally protected with a key derived from SK_d (and thus are immune to quantum computers if PPKs [RFC8784] are employed), the other sensitive data, including group policy, is not.¶

Another issue with using PPKs as defined in [RFC8784] is that this approach assumes that PPKs are static entities, which are changed very infrequently. For this reason, PPKs are only used once when an initial IKE SA is established. This restriction makes it difficult to use PPKs as defined in [RFC8784] when they are changed relatively frequently, for example, via the use of Quantum Key Distribution (QKD). If a fresh PPK becomes available before the IKE SA is expired, there is no way to use it except for deleting the IKE SA and recreating a new one from scratch using the fresh PPK.¶

Some time after the protocol extension for mixing preshared keys in IKEv2 for post-quantum security was defined in [RFC8784], a new IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange for IKEv2 [RFC9242] was developed. While the primary motivation for developing this exchange was to allow multiple key exchanges to be used in IKEv2 (which is defined in [RFC9370]), the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange itself can be used for other purposes too.¶

This specification defines the use of PPKs in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange of IKEv2 for post-quantum security, which allows getting full protection against quantum computers for initial IKE SA.¶

This specification also defines the use of PPKs in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange for creating additional IPsec SAs and for rekeying IKE and IPsec SAs. This allows implementations to leverage fresh PPKs without the need to delete the IKE SA and create it from scratch.¶

This specification does not replace the approach defined in [RFC8784]. Both approaches for using PPKs in IKEv2 can be used depending on the circumstances (see Appendix A).¶

## 2. Terminology and Notation

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 uses the terms defined in [RFC7296]. In particular, readers should be familiar with the terms "initiator" and "responder" as used in that document.¶

The approach defined in [RFC8784] is referred to as "using PPKs in the IKE_AUTH exchange" or simply "using PPKs in IKE_AUTH" throughout this document.¶

## 3. Protocol Description

### 3.1. Creating Initial IKE SA

The IKE initiator, which supports the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange and wants to use a PPK to protect the initial IKE SA, includes the INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED notification and a notification of type USE_PPK_INT in the IKE_SA_INIT request. If the responder supports the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange and is willing to use PPK for initial IKE SA protection, it includes both these notifications in the IKE_SA_INIT response.¶

    Initiator                       Responder
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    HDR, SAi1, KEi, Ni,
    N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED),
    N(USE_PPK_INT)              --->
                            <---    HDR, SAr1, KEr, Nr, [CERTREQ,]
                                    N(INTERMEDIATE_EXCHANGE_SUPPORTED),
                                    N(USE_PPK_INT)

¶

The USE_PPK_INT is a Status Type IKEv2 notification. Its Notify Message Type is 16445; the Protocol ID is set to 0; the Security Parameter Index (SPI) is absent, so the SPI Size is set to 0 too. This specification does not define any data that this notification may contain, so the Notification Data is left empty. However, future extensions of this specification may make use of it. Implementations MUST ignore any data in the notification that they do not understand.¶

Note that this negotiation is independent from the negotiation of using PPKs as specified in [RFC8784]. An initiator that supports both the use of PPKs in IKE_AUTH [RFC8784] and IKE_INTERMEDIATE MAY include both the USE_PPK_INT and USE_PPK notifications if configured to do so. However, if the responder supports both specifications and is configured to use PPKs, it has to choose one to use; thus, it MUST return either a USE_PPK_INT or a USE_PPK notification in the response but not both.¶

If the initiator did not propose using this extension in the IKE_SA_INIT request and the responder's policy mandates protecting initial IKE SA with a PPK, then the responder MUST return the NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN notification.¶

If the negotiation was successful, the initiator includes one or more PPK_IDENTITY_KEY notifications in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE request with PPK identities that the initiator believes are appropriate for the IKE SA being created.¶

The PPK_IDENTITY_KEY is a Status Type IKEv2 notification. Its Notify Message Type is 16446; the Protocol ID and the SPI Size fields are both set to 0. The format of the Notification Data is shown below in Figure 1.¶

                         1                   2                   3
     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    ~                             PPK_ID                            ~
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
    |                                                               |
    +                        PPK Confirmation                       +
    |                                                               |
    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Figure 1: PPK_IDENTITY_KEY Notification Data Format

Where:¶

PPK_ID (variable):
  PPK_ID as defined in Section 5.1 of [RFC8784]. The receiver can determine the length of PPK_ID by subtracting 8 (the length of PPK Confirmation) from the Notification Data length.¶
PPK Confirmation (8 octets):

  A value that allows the responder to check whether it has the same PPK as the initiator for a given PPK_ID. This field contains the first 8 octets of a string computed as prf( PPK, Ni | Nr | SPIi | SPIr ), where:¶

  - "prf" is the negotiated PRF;¶
  - PPK is the key value for a specified PPK_ID;¶
  - Ni, Nr, SPIi, SPIr are nonces and IKE SPIs for the SA being established.¶

If a series of the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchanges takes place, the PPK_IDENTITY_KEY notification(s) MUST be sent in the last one, i.e., in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange immediately preceding the IKE_AUTH exchange. If this IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange contains other payloads aimed for some other purpose, then the notification(s) MAY be piggybacked with these payloads. Note that future IKEv2 extensions utilizing the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange may allow one or more of these exchanges to happen after the one concerned with PPK for the case when such extensions are negotiated.¶

    Initiator                         Responder
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    HDR, SK { ... N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_1)
               [, N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_2)] ...
               [, N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_n)]}   --->

¶

Depending on the responder's capabilities and policy, the following situations are possible:¶

1. If the responder is configured with a PPK with an ID that is among the IDs sent by the initiator, and if this PPK matches the initiator's PPK (based on the information from the PPK Confirmation field), then the responder selects this PPK and returns its identity in the PPK_IDENTITY notification. The PPK_IDENTITY notification is defined in [RFC8784].¶

       Initiator                       Responder
       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      <---    HDR, SK { ... N(PPK_IDENTITY, PPK_ID_i)}

   ¶

   In this case, the IKE_AUTH exchange is performed as defined in IKEv2 [RFC7296]. However, the keys for the IKE SA are computed using PPK, as described in Section 3.1.1. If the responder returns a PPK identity that was not proposed by the initiator, then the initiator MUST treat this as fatal and abort the IKE SA establishment.¶

2. If the responder does not have a PPK with an ID that matches any of IDs sent by the initiator, or if the responder has some of the proposed PPKs but their values are mismatched from the initiator's PPKs (based on the information from the PPK Confirmation field), and if using PPK is mandatory for the responder, then it MUST return an AUTHENTICATION_FAILED notification and abort creating the IKE SA.¶

       Initiator                       Responder
       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        <---    HDR, SK {... N(AUTHENTICATION_FAILED)}

   ¶

3. If the responder does not have any PPKs proposed by the initiator, or if it has only some of the proposed PPKs but their values mismatch the initiator's ones (based on the information from the PPK Confirmation field), and if using PPK is optional for the responder, then it does not include any PPK_IDENTITY notification to the response.¶

       Initiator                       Responder
       ---------------------------------------------------------------
                               <---    HDR, SK {...}

   ¶

   In this case, the initiator cannot achieve quantum computer resistance using the proposed PPKs. If this is a requirement for the initiator, then it MUST abort creating the IKE SA. Otherwise, the initiator continues with the IKE_AUTH exchange as described in IKEv2 [RFC7296].¶

Table 1 summarizes the above logic for the responder:¶

Table 1: Responder's Behavior
Received USE_PPK_INT | Supports USE_PPK_INT | Has one of the proposed PPKs | PPK is mandatory for initial IKE SA | Action
--- | --- | --- | --- | ---
No | * | * | No | [RFC8784] (if proposed) or standard IKEv2 protocol
No | Yes | * | Yes | Send NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN
Yes | Yes | Yes | * | Section 3.1, Paragraph 14, Item 1 (use this extension)
Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Section 3.1, Paragraph 14, Item 2 (abort negotiation)
Yes | Yes | No | No | Section 3.1, Paragraph 14, Item 3 (standard IKEv2 protocol)

Since the responder selects a PPK before it knows the identity of the initiator, a situation may occur where the responder agrees to use some PPK in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange but then, during the IKE_AUTH exchange, discovers that this particular PPK is not associated with the initiator's identity in its local policy. Note that the responder does have this PPK, but it is just not listed among the PPKs to be used with this initiator. In this case, the responder SHOULD abort negotiation and return back the AUTHENTICATION_FAILED notification to be consistent with its policy. However, the responder MAY continue creating IKE SA using the negotiated "wrong" PPK if this is acceptable according to its local policy.¶

#### 3.1.1. Computing IKE SA Keys

Once the PPK is negotiated in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange, the IKE SA keys are recalculated. Note that if the IKE SA keys are also recalculated as a result of other actions performed in this IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange (for example, as defined in [RFC9370]), then applying the PPK MUST be done after all of them so that recalculating IKE SA keys with the PPK is the last action before they are used in the next exchange. Note that future IKEv2 extensions utilizing the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange may update this requirement for the case when such extensions are negotiated.¶

The IKE SA keys are computed differently compared to how PPKs are used in IKE_AUTH. A new SKEYSEED' value is computed using the negotiated PPK and the most recently computed SK_d key. Note that the PPK is applied to SK_d exactly how it is specified in [RFC8784], and the result is used as SKEYSEED'.¶

    SKEYSEED' = prf+ (PPK, SK_d)

¶

Then the SKEYSEED' is used to recalculate all SK_* keys as defined in Section 2.14 of [RFC7296].¶

    {SK_d | SK_ai | SK_ar | SK_ei | SK_er | SK_pi | SK_pr}
                               = prf+ (SKEYSEED', Ni | Nr | SPIi | SPIr )

¶

In the formula above, Ni and Nr are nonces from the IKE_SA_INIT exchange, and SPIi and SPIr are the SPIs of the IKE SA being created. Note that SK_d, SK_pi, and SK_pr are not individually recalculated using PPK, as defined in [RFC8784].¶

The resulting keys are then used in the IKE_AUTH exchange and in the created IKE SA.¶

### 3.2. Using PPKs in the CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchange

If a fresh PPK is available to both peers at the time when an IKE SA is active, peers MAY use this fresh PPK without creating a new IKE SA from scratch when they have a need to create additional IPsec SAs or to rekey existing SAs. In this case, the PPK can be used for creating additional IPsec SAs and for rekeying both IKE and IPsec SAs regardless of whether the current IKE SA was created with the use of a PPK (no matter how: in IKE_AUTH, in IKE_INTERMEDIATE, or in CREATE_CHILD_SA) or not.¶

If the initiator wants to use a PPK in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange, it includes one or more PPK_IDENTITY_KEY notifications containing PPK identities that the initiator believes are appropriate for the SA being created in the CREATE_CHILD_SA request. In this case, the PPK Confirmation field contains the first 8 octets of a string computed as prf( PPK, Ni | SPIi | SPIr ), where Ni is the initiator's nonce from the CREATE_CHILD_SA request and SPIi/SPIr are the SPIs of the current IKE SA. If the responder supports using PPKs in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange and is configured and ready to do it, then it sends back the PPK_IDENTITY notification containing the ID of the selected PPK, as depicted in the figures below.¶

    Initiator                         Responder
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    HDR, SK {[N(REKEY_SA),] SA, Ni, [KEi,] TSi, TSr,
            N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_1)
            [, N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_2)] ...
            [, N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_n)]}   --->

                             <---    HDR, SK {SA, Nr [KEr,] TSi, TSr,
                                             N(PPK_IDENTITY, PPK_ID_i)}

Figure 2: CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchange for Creating or Rekeying Child SAs

    Initiator                         Responder
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    HDR, SK {SA, Ni, KEi,
            N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_1)
            [, N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_2)] ...
            [, N(PPK_IDENTITY_KEY, PPK_ID_n)]}   --->

                             <---    HDR, SK {SA, Nr, KEr,
                                             N(PPK_IDENTITY, PPK_ID_i)}

Figure 3: CREATE_CHILD_SA Exchange for Rekeying IKE SA

If the responder does not support (or is not configured for) using PPKs in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange or does not have a PPK with an ID that matches any of IDs sent by the initiator, or if the responder has some of the proposed PPKs but their values are mismatched from the initiator's PPKs (based on the information from the PPK Confirmation field), then it will not include any PPK_IDENTITY notifications in the response, and new SA is created as defined in IKEv2 [RFC7296]. If this is inappropriate for the initiator, it can immediately delete this SA.¶

If using PPKs in CREATE_CHILD_SA is mandatory for the responder, and the initiator does not include any PPK_IDENTITY_KEY notifications in the request, or if the responder does not have a PPK with an ID that matches any of IDs sent by the initiator, or if the responder has some of the proposed PPKs but with mismatched values from the initiator's PPKs (based on the information from the PPK Confirmation field), then the responder MUST return the NO_PROPOSAL_CHOSEN notification.¶

Otherwise, the new SA is created using the selected PPK.¶

#### 3.2.1. Computing Keys

For the purpose of calculation session keys for the new SA, the current SK_d key is first mixed with the selected PPK:¶

    SK_d' = prf+ (PPK, SK_d)

¶

The resulting key SK_d' is then used instead of SK_d in all formulas for computing keys for the new SA (Sections 2.17 and 2.18 of [RFC7296] and Section 2.2.4 of [RFC9370]).¶

Note that if the PPK that was used for the IKE SA establishment is not changed, then there is no point to use it in the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange.¶

## 4. Security Considerations

Security considerations for using Post-quantum Preshared Keys in the IKEv2 protocol are discussed in [RFC8784]. Unlike using PPKs in IKE_AUTH, this specification makes even initial IKE SA quantum secure. In addition, a PPK is mixed into the SK_* keys calculation before the IKE_AUTH exchange starts, and since the PPK is used in authentication too, this exchange is quantum secure even against an active attacker.¶

This specification relies on the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange. Refer to [RFC9242] for discussion of related security issues.¶

Section 4 of [RFC9370] discusses the potential impact of when a CRQC is accessible on various cryptographic primitives used in IKEv2. It is worthwhile to repeat here that it is believed that the security of symmetric key cryptographic primitives will not be affected by CRQC.¶

## 5. IANA Considerations

Per this document, IANA has added the following Notify Message Types in the "IKEv2 Notify Message Status Types" registry:¶

16445
  USE_PPK_INT¶
16446
  PPK_IDENTITY_KEY¶

## 6. References

### 6.1. Normative References

[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>.
[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>.
[RFC7296]
  Kaufman, C., Hoffman, P., Nir, Y., Eronen, P., and T. Kivinen, "Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", STD 79, RFC 7296, DOI 10.17487/RFC7296, October 2014, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7296>.
[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>.
[RFC9242]
  Smyslov, V., "Intermediate Exchange in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 9242, DOI 10.17487/RFC9242, May 2022, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9242>.

### 6.2. Informative References

[RFC9838]
  Smyslov, V. and B. Weis, "Group Key Management Using the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 9838, DOI 10.17487/RFC9838, November 2025, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9838>.
[RFC9370]
  Tjhai, CJ., Tomlinson, M., Bartlett, G., Fluhrer, S., Van Geest, D., Garcia-Morchon, O., and V. Smyslov, "Multiple Key Exchanges in the Internet Key Exchange Protocol Version 2 (IKEv2)", RFC 9370, DOI 10.17487/RFC9370, May 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9370>.

## Appendix A. Comparison of this Specification with RFC 8784

This specification is not intended to be a replacement for using PPKs in IKE_AUTH as defined in [RFC8784]. Instead, it is supposed to be used in situations where the approach defined there does not meet the requirements, like the need to make the initial IKE SA quantum-secure or the need to choose between several available PPKs. However, if the peers support both using PPKs in IKE_AUTH and this specification, then the latter may also be used in situations where using PPKs in IKE_AUTH suffices (e.g., when the initial IKE SA is not required to be quantum-protected).¶

The approach defined in this document has the following advantages:¶

1. The main advantage of using PPK in the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange instead of the IKE_AUTH exchange is that it allows IKE_AUTH to be fully protected. This means that the ID payloads and any other sensitive content sent in the IKE_AUTH are protected against quantum computers. The same is true for the sensitive data sent in the GSA_AUTH exchange in the G-IKEv2 protocol [RFC9838].¶

2. In addition to the IKE_AUTH exchange being fully protected, the initial IKE SA is also fully protected, which is important when sensitive information is transferred over initial IKE SA. Examples of such a situation are the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange of IKEv2 and the GSA_REGISTRATION exchange of G-IKEv2 [RFC9838].¶

3. As the PPK exchange happens as a separate exchange before IKE_AUTH, this means that initiator can propose several PPKs and the responder can pick one. This is not possible when the PPK exchange happens in the IKE_AUTH. This feature could simplify PPK rollover.¶

4. With this specification there is no need for the initiator to calculate the content of the AUTH payload twice (with and without PPK) to support a situation when using PPK is optional for both sides.¶

The main disadvantage of the approach defined in this document is that it always requires an additional round trip (the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange) to set up the IKE SA and the initial IPsec SA. However, if the IKE_INTERMEDIATE exchange has to be used for some other purposes in any case, then the PPK-related payloads can be piggybacked with other payloads, thus eliminating this penalty.¶

## Acknowledgements

Author would like to thank Paul Wouters for valuable comments and Tero Kivinen who made a thorough review of the document and proposed a lot of text improvements, and who also pointed out to the problem of mismatched preshared keys. Thanks to Rebecca Guthrie for providing comments and proposals for the document and to Mikhail Borodin for discovering the problem of calculating PPK Confirmation in CREATE_CHILD_SA.¶

## Author's Address