IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Pqc] Mapping the state of PQC and IETF - ssh

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Fri, 03 March 2023 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
X-Original-To: pqc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pqc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86A6C14CEF9 for <pqc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:32:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.895
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7m-iwaP3UGo for <pqc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:32:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B06ACC14EAA3 for <pqc@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2023 05:32:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 3043 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Mar 2023 13:32:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 3 Mar 2023 13:32:13 -0000
Received: (qmail 1133282 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Mar 2023 13:31:43 -0000
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:31:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20230303133143.1133281.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: pqc@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: pqc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMc22AFb7uNF7c4BU2rXotgAbtCTO4-iutiV3UF__jJmg@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pqc/hJtg1vPZykZgloI3t6_g0Gj4zIY>
Subject: Re: [Pqc] Mapping the state of PQC and IETF - ssh
X-BeenThere: pqc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Post Quantum Cryptography discussion list <pqc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pqc>, <mailto:pqc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pqc/>
List-Post: <mailto:pqc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pqc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pqc>, <mailto:pqc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2023 13:32:20 -0000

Eric Rescorla writes:
> Without taking a position on the technical question, zero
> implementations of a protocol is sufficient for Proposed Standard.

Just to elaborate a bit, since I figure this list has many people new to
the IETF: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7127 says

   Usually, neither implementation nor operational experience is
   required for the designation of a specification as a Proposed
   Standard.  However, such experience is highly desirable and will
   usually represent a strong argument in favor of a Proposed Standard
   designation.

The requirement of "at least two independent interoperating
implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational
experience" appears at the Internet Standard level; this quote is from
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6410.

---D. J. Bernstein

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email