Re: [IPsec] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Yes, that’s just fine — sorry for the duplicate effort, I hadn’t noticed Paul’s comment.

—John

> On Nov 30, 2022, at 6:18 PM, CJ Tjhai <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I've just realised that Paul Wouters has also commented on the same sentence and he has suggested the following:
> 
> A hybrid post-quantum algorithm to be introduced along with
> the well-established primitives addresses this concern, since the overall
> security is at least as strong as each individual primitive.
> 
> This has been committed into our latest PR. Hope this works with you.
> 
> Cheers,
> CJ
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 23:11, CJ Tjhai <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi John,
> 
> Many thanks for your review. Please see the response inline below.
> 
> Best wishes,
> CJ
> 
> 
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2022 at 20:56, John Scudder via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-multiple-ke-10: No Objection
> 
> 
>  
> [snipped]
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for this. I have just one comment, about what's probably just a
> typographical error but it interfered with my understanding of the point in
> question so it seemed worth mentioning.
> 
> ### Section 2, (2) is missing a verb, but what verb?
> 
> ```
> Hybrid. Currently, there does not exist a post-quantum key exchange that is
> trusted at the level that (EC)DH is trusted against conventional (non-quantum)
> adversaries. A hybrid post-quantum algorithm to be introduced next to
> well-established primitives, since the overall security is at least as strong
> as each individual primitive. ```
> 
> The second sentence seems, at minimum, to be missing a verb. For instance you
> could interpolate "needs" between "algorithm" and "to be", but I'm not sure if
> that properly captures your intended meaning.
> 
> I see your point, perhaps we should rephrase the sentence to the following:
> 
> Combining a post-quantum algorithm next to well-established primitives
> in a hybrid arrangement, would alleviate this concern since the overall security
> is at least as strong as each individual primitive.
> 
> Would this work with you?  
> 
> PQ Solutions Limited (trading as ‘Post-Quantum’) is a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number 06808505.
>  
> This email is meant only for the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
> 
> For more information about Post-Quantum, please visit www.post-quantum.com.
> 
> In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy notice at www.post-quantum.com/privacy-policy/ to learn about how we use this information.