Re: [saag] SSH & Ntruprime

[Simon Josefsson <[e-mail]>]

Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=[e-mail]> writes:

> The normal IETF process is that change control is with the IETF. Would the
> draft
> authors be willing to make the changes recommended by the Crypto
> Panel?

Hi Paul,
If the IETF wants to move forward with this as a standard then certainly
change control belongs to the IETF, so speaking for myself: yes.  There
is a prototype for a new SSH key exchange mechanism based on the
stronger Chempat Hybrid PQ/T KEM and non-sntrup761 PQ algorithms in the
works, and others are working on different SSH KEX PQ designs.  If the
IETF has an interest in this work that discussion could be moved into
the IETF sphere, but given the attitude towards this effort I can't say
that I blame SSH people for low IETF participation.

> If not, what would be the reason for IETF to continue publication and
> lend its reputation to this then uncooperative team?

I believe you misunderstand the purpose of publishing this document, and
personally I feel sad that you imply we are uncooperative.  The point of
publication is to describe a protocol to allow interoperable
implementations and provide a stable reference with an established
errata process around it.  Developing another (incompatible) protocol is
possible, but orthogonal, and it takes interested parties.  Are you
volunteering to help this in the IETF?  Having people from the IETF
community facilitate SSH protocol work would be appreciated, and may
help to heal trust and increase likelyhood of future collaboration.

/Simon