Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven...@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> I thought the world was moving towards ML-KEM and FrodoKEM? It would be
That seems to be where CFRG/NIST/PQC is going.
The whole world is not NIST though. I think that figuring out how to
accomodate McElice, with what I understand are monstrous sizes is a good
thing to do, assuming we have people willing to do the experiment. (running
code)
>> If we want to ever support them, then at least two issues should be
>> addressed:
>> 1. Limited IKEv2 payload size (can be addressed with
>> draft-nir-ipsecme-big-payload)
>> 2. Transport issues with transferring large keys maintaining ESP
>> performance
>> (can be addressed with draft-smyslov-ipsecme-ikev2-reliable-transport)
>>
> I am open on looking at those, but would encourage us to not adopt
> documents for this
> until it becomes clear there is an actual need. With such a caveat, I
think
> it is ok for some
> kind of mention in the charter.
I would like to be able to adopt without revising the charter, and I also
think it's good to adopt documents much easier. (Even if we don't intend to
finish them soon)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
