Re: [Cfrg] A terminology issue with "post-quantum cryptography"

Hi everyone,

"Post Quantum Cryptography" is a well established term in the  
cryptographic community now, so I think it is best to keep as is. I  
think a good rational to explain the term to others would be to say  
that it is the crypto that will still be safe after (full scale)  
quantum computers become available.

Vladimir

Quoting "David McGrew (mcgrew)" <mcgrew@cisco.com>:

> Hi Paul,
>
>
> On 8/16/17, 1:55 PM, "Cfrg on behalf of Paul Hoffman"  
> <cfrg-bounces@irtf.org on behalf of paul.hoffman@icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Greetings. I was talking with a colleague this morning about  
>> draft-hoffman-c2pq and trying to describe quantum computing for  
>> cryptanalysis, and why quantum cryptography is not part of it.  
>> Their response should give us pause about our terminology: "So  
>> post-quantum cryptography is what we get after quantum cryptography  
>> is fully developed?".
>
> The current terminology is fine.   We should just be doing a better  
> job of describing why quantum cryptography is not a viable  
> cybersecurity solution.
>
> David
>
>>
>> I'm not offering a solution here, but that question is quite  
>> understandable and terrible at the same time.
>>
>> --Paul Hoffman
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cfrg mailing list
>> Cfrg@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>