[CFRG] Re: Progressing NTRUPrime/Classic McEliece drafts

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla writes:
> Simon Josefsson [...] wrote:
> > Defering authority on crypto primitives to NIST is implied by many
> > suggestions made IETF-wide right now.
> i haven't seen anyone suggest that CFRG should not publish its own
> specifications regardless of what NIST does.

Some quotes in 2024 from IETF security-area directors:

    * "CFRG does not analyse or evaluate cryptography itself"
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/120/materials/slides-120-saag-cryptography-at-the-ietf)

    * "SEC AD Proposal: Limit publication of crypto RFCs"
      (https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/120/materials/slides-120-saag-cryptography-at-the-ietf)

    * "the cryptographic research communities are focusing on NIST
      candidates"
      (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/9e1QheO1L6SVBX3a8mFSij9AgHw/)

    * "Should the IETF really recommend a dropped candidate at this
      stage? I do not think so"
      (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/9e1QheO1L6SVBX3a8mFSij9AgHw/)

The details of the "limit publication" proposal weren't clearly stated,
but included an "outside the IETF" criterion that sounded like it would
eliminate IETF (in the broad sense, including IRTF) as an independent
source of cryptographic standards---presumably rubber-stamping NIST's
decisions instead, as one sees in the last link.

---D. J. Bernstein