Panwei \(William\) <william.panwei=40huawei....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> The PQC algorithms, such as ML-DSA and SLH-DSA, don't perfectly fit
> with the original IKEv2 authentication architecture. For example, this
> is discussed in Section 5.2 of the document. So, we need to consider
> how to process with this situation, whether we need to expand the
> architecture. This part is 1) of Paul's email. And I agree that this
> general considerations should be a separate draft. Although currently
> ML-DSA and SLH-DSA are the only standardized signature algorithms,
> there will be more algorithms being standardized in the future. We need
> to have the consideration for the general mechanism now, rather than
> designing one by one.
> As a practical manner, I suggest adopting the current draft as is, and
> then discussing (splitting) the general mechanism part later by
> considering other possible PQC signature algorithms.
I agree: adopt it as is, and fix it.
I'm not quite convinced we can't do the general mechanism in this document,
and then apply it to ML-DSA and SLH-DSA. I think that readers/reviewers
would precer that. But, I don't feel strongly about this.
--
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
