On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 at 10:11, John Mattsson
wrote:
>
> >There exist standards for FrodoKEM now, so you could point to those
> >documents (or does IANA insist they be IETF documents?)
> I do not think IETF should normatively refer to paywalled ISO crypto
> standards, they don’t even fulfill speci
>There exist standards for FrodoKEM now, so you could point to those documents
>(or does IANA insist they be IETF documents?)
I do not think IETF should normatively refer to paywalled ISO crypto standards,
they don’t even fulfill specification required. Paywalls significantly
discourage security
There exist standards for FrodoKEM now, so you could point to those documents
(or does IANA insist they be IETF documents?)
On the other hand, it is far too early for BIKE or HQC. For one, we don't know
which NIST would select. And, even when they do, they may very well make
tweaks between no
Do we know which transform IDs will be used for the pre-standard PQCs
(FrodoKEM, BIKE, HQC)?
Thanks
Phil
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 10:46 AM Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 5:07 AM John Mattsson
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I think IKEv2 should register code points for FrodoK
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 5:07 AM John Mattsson
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I think IKEv2 should register code points for FrodoKEM and BIKE/HQC
> (depending on which one NIST standardizes). I think it is important with
> backups to ML-KEM. The importance of cryptographic agility has been
> emphasized
