[Cfrg] New draft on the transition from classical to post-quantum cryptography
"Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 03 May 2017 22:28 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430051294BF for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PnJ3Qv5GF7Gr for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:28:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.proper.com (Opus1.Proper.COM [207.182.41.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A7741296D2 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [169.254.218.211] (142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.proper.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id v43MQePa045258 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Wed, 3 May 2017 15:26:41 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail.proper.com: Host 142-254-101-176.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [142.254.101.176] claimed to be [169.254.218.211]
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 15:27:02 -0700
Message-ID: <BAE7613D-D89C-4F19-8FA5-1D3BCC55DCCB@vpnc.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5347)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/k84afUJCcZ15KHTlrHgs3HsNaBk>
Subject: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from classical to post-quantum cryptography
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 22:28:48 -0000
Greetings again. I have just published a very, very preliminary Internet Draft to help people understand when they have to make the transition from classical to post-quantum cryptography. The draft information is here: Name: draft-hoffman-c2pq Revision: 00 Title: The Transition from Classical to Post-Quantum Cryptography Document date: 2017-05-03 Group: Individual Submission Pages: 12 URL: https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-c2pq-00.txt Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-c2pq-00 This -00 is full of holes, but gives a structure for how to tell people about quantum computers that apply to breaking cryptographic keys, how to tell when those computers might become feasible, and what they need to think about for the transition. It most emphatically does *not* cover post-quantum algorithms other than to say "go look here for more info on that". That is, this document is about determining when people need to make the transition, not the algorithms to which they might transition. Clearly, the draft needs a lot of input. Not only are there holes, there may be flat-out errors in it. That's why there is the strong disclaimer at the beginning; I am not a cryptographer, a mathematician, or a physicist, but I do work in fields where people are asking "should we even be thinking about post-quantum crypto". Suggestions for text are great, suggestions that come with references are even better. Does this seem like something that CFRG might be interested in adopting as an RG document? If so, I can make the next version draft-irtf-cfrg...; if not, I can keep this as an individual draft that will get published in the IETF stream instead of the IRTF stream. --Paul Hoffman
- [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from classical… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Tams, Benjamin
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Tams, Benjamin
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Salz, Rich
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Tams, Benjamin
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Russ Housley
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Richard Outerbridge
- Re: [Cfrg] New draft on the transition from class… Hugo Krawczyk