Hi Rich,
I think that Kenny's slides only support the idea, that the draft should be
Standards Track.
In particular, the slide "The Coming Crypt-Apocalypse?" has a bullet:
* And traffic captured now could be broken later, so it’s a problem
*today* if you
have data that needs to be kept secure for decades.
That's the problem the draft solves.
Regards,
Valery.
> Slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/99/materials/slides-99-saag-
> post-quantum-cryptography
>
> Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abmd1n5WUvc&t=1451s
>
>
> On 12/11/19, 11:36 AM, "Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer)" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Did Kenny make this statement in the context of postquantum
> cryptography (that is, public key algorithms that are believed to be secure
> even if the adversary has a quantum computer)?
>
> That would certainly be a reasonable statement (as most postquantum
> algorithms are fairly new, and are still being cryptographically vetted).
>
> On the other hand, this specific draft doesn't involve any postquantum
> algorithms; it relies only on currently accepted algorithms, and so Kenny's
> caution would not apply.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Salz, Rich <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2019 11:23 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected];
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-09.txt>
> (Postquantum
> > Preshared Keys for IKEv2) to Proposed Standard
> >
> > We are seeing a flurry of these kind of “post quantum protection”
> things.
> > This is premature. The co-chair of the CFRG, Kenny Paterson, said so
> awhile
> > back.
> >
> > At best, this should be EXPERIMENTAL.
> >
> > I would like to see an IESG policy that makes all drafts on this topic
> be
> > EXPERIMENTAL.
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
