I'm talking about the ongoing NIST quantum cryptography competition, which targets at the lowest level security equivalent to AES-128.
On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:24 AM Uri Blumenthal <u...@mit.edu> wrote: > NIST produces standards and recommendations. US government organizations > and companies doing business with them are usually required to comply. > Organizations and businesses (both US and non-US) that are not bound by US > regulations, often pay attention to what NIST recommends. > > To repeat myself, it mages sense to add reference to the NIST levels, even > if Watson doesn't insist. ;-) > > On Dec 25, 2019, at 12:29, Valery Smyslov <val...@smyslov.net> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 3:57 AM Uri Blumenthal <u...@mit.edu> wrote: > > NIST standards are mandatory for a subset of US citizens. But enough of > businesses outside the US pay attention to what NIST says to make adding > the reference relevant and useful. > > > > It's not about standards, it's about the competition and the relevant > security level definitions. Not that I feel strongly about it, just a > suggestion.. > > > > Then I'm a bit confused. What competition do you mean? > > > > Regards, > > Valery. > > > > > > > > On Dec 25, 2019, at 01:52, Valery Smyslov <s...@elvis.ru> wrote: > > > > Hi Watson, > > > > thank you for spending your time on this review in Christmas Eve. > > > > The capitalization issue has been already noticed and fixed. > > > > I’m not sure the draft should mention NIST levels, because > > they are relevant mostly for US customers. I think that > > generic recommendations on key sizes are more appropriate > > for this document. > > > > Regards, > > Valery. > > > > Damn misclick. I meant With Nits. > > > > On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 8:02 PM Watson Ladd via Datatracker < > nore...@ietf.org> wrote: > > Reviewer: Watson Ladd > Review result: Not Ready > > Twas the night before Christmas > when all through the house > someone was desperately trying to get a review done on time. > > I didn't see anything wrong per se in the draft itself, but I found the > capitalization of quantum computer an odd choice. IKEv2 is a complicated > protocol, and I am not 100% sure that this draft does what we want it to: > It > would be great if someone could check very carefully in some symbolic > model, > ala what has been done in TLS. The guidance on sizes seems to rule out NIST > level 1, but not any higher levels: might be worth calling out this > explicitly. > > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > sec...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir > wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview > > > > -- > > "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". > --Rousseau. > > _______________________________________________ > secdir mailing list > sec...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir > wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview > > > > -- > > "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". > --Rousseau.. > > -- "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". --Rousseau.
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
