Re: [saag] PQC in ZRTP (RFC6189) and hybrid KEM

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:27 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 09:47:46PM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:28 AM Johan Pascal <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > thanks for your suggestions. I know the work on hybrid design is
> already
> > > done in TLS and others . While looking for some documentation on that
> > > specific problem I found several protocols addressing it, each of them
> with
> > > specific details related to the protocol and that is mainly what led
> me to
> > > think that a document dedicated to hybrid scheme might make sense: it
> would
> > > save the next person trying to achieve exactly what I'm trying to do
> for
> > > ZRTP the work of reading the different specifications, parting what is
> > > protocol related and what is not. But the hybrid mechanism can be
> described
> > > in the PQC-ZRTP I-D itself.
> > >
> > > Colin, as the problem of updating ZRTP to a PQ-KEM scheme is mostly
> > > security related it made more sense to me to post it on Saag. The
> perfect
> > > list to discuss it would be the potential "PQC Agility" WG if it is
> charted
> > > at some point (
> > >
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/5uV72m80X9PTGFWFyDY5VrNyK-c/).
> > > Is there any update on this?
> > >
> > Well, discuss it, perhaps, but given that ZRTP is not an IETF protocol,
> we
> > generally would not publish this document out of that group.
>
> Sorry for splitting hairs, but RFC 6189 does have the "represents the
> consensus of the IETF community" boilerplate, that would seem to  make it
> an IETF protocol by at least some definitions.
>

Without taking a position on whether this was hair splitting, ZRTP was not
developed by an IETF WG. It was externally developed and then published
as Informational.

-Ekr