I support this work, but there is already a draft specifying both ML-DSA and
SLH-DSA in IKEv2:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-ipsecme-ikev2-pqc-auth/
Scott, as you're an author on both you'll have no problem reconciling the two
drafts :)
Regards,
Daniel
On 2025-01-31 7:40 p.m.,
I’ve already pulled in the changes into draft-reddy-ipsecme-ikev2-pqc-auth (at
least, the one in github – that update will be published Real Soon Now).
Except, one of my coauthors preferred the RFC8420 approach and no one else
(including me) had an opinion, so that’s what we’ll be doing for now…
Hi all,
The revised draft
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-reddy-ipsecme-ikev2-pqc-auth-04.html
incorporates text from draft-sfluhrer-ipsecme-ikev2-mldsa and addresses
comments from the WG.
Cheers,
-Tiru
-- Forwarded message -
From:
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 11:35
Subject:
Hi,
this version addresses comments made during IESG evaluation.
Regards,
Brian & Valery.
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:17 AM
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf.org
> Cc: ipsec@ietf.org
> Subject: [IPsec] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-
Hi Roman,
the just posted -21 version addresses your DISCUSS.
Regards,
Valery.
> -Original Message-
> From: Valery Smyslov
> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3:26 PM
> To: 'Roman Danyliw' ; 'The IESG'
> Cc: draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ik...@ietf.org; ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org;
> ipsec@ietf.org;
Hi Steffen,
Thanks for your reply, some thoughts inline.
> > 3. In the Peer Header of Section 2.3, it’s said that the Peer Header
> > contains an optional ‘Sequence Number’ field and an optional
> > ‘Initialization Vector’ field. If both fields are optional, is this
Peer Header
>
