[CFRG] Re: Progressing NTRUPrime/Classic McEliece drafts

[Thom Wiggers <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

For Classic McEliece, I think it would be helpful if people come forward
with concrete applications in which they're actually wanting/trying to
deploy Classic McEliece. I recall that NIST has also repeatedly asked
people to come forward about (not-theoretical) use cases, so this
discussion may also help them decide if they want to make Classic McEliece
a NIST standard or not. The tradeoffs that McEliece presents with its very
tiny ciphertext size but massive public keys may make it very difficult to
actually deploy (I see that in theory, there may be use cases in which it's
the *only* thing that can be deployed, but I've never really seen that
materialize).

Cheers,

Thom


Op za 25 jan 2025 om 06:01 schreef Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]
>:

> On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 at 22:54, Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear CFRG,
> >
> > Sadly I don't quite have the bandwidth, but I think it would make
> > sense to progress an NTRUPrime draft and a Classic McEliece draft
> > here. These algorithms avoid some IPR claims that may apply to Kyber,
> > and there's plenty of interest in deployment. They also have a fairly
> > long cryptoanalytic history, being largely unchanged from the original
> > proposals of many decades ago. Obviously people may want entry ramp
> > proposals instead, but I think the IPR picture will be less clear.
> >
>
> I would tend to support this. Adopters need alternatives.
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Watson
> >
> > --
> > Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> CFRG mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>