Re: [saag] sntrup761x25519-sha512

Without taking a position on this draft, I think it would be good if we
loosened
the policy for the SSH-KEX registry, as we have for TLS and some other
protocols.

-Ekr

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 3:37 PM Simon Josefsson <simon=
40josefsson.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net> writes:
>
> > On Tue, May 23, 2023, at 15:35, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> In the same way that if the IETF decided to change the details of a
> >> deployed protocol, then the implementor community would change over to
> >> that code point, yes.
> >
> > So if the IETF decided that Kyber was preferred to SNTRU (as Panos
> > suggested), that goes too, right?  That's a pretty significant change,
> > but a good test of whether this is IETF vs. independent for me.
>
> I may be missing your actual point, and I don't speak for anyone but
> myself, but I believe that the SSH community is interested in
> standardizing, implementing and deploying a KEX based on Kyber in
> collaboration with the IETF community, and further believe that this
> does not take away the desire or usefulness for the IETF to publish a
> document that describes sntrup761x25519-sha512.  Those are orthogonal
> issues.  The latter is a widely deployed SSH KEX and will continue to be
> widely used for many years to come, even if Kyber would be implemented
> as well.
>
> > I think that you said that you wouldn't be interested in that outcome,
> > which is why I suggested that independent submissions would be better.
>
> As far as I understand, the independent submission route is not possible
> due to the IANA registration policy for the SSH KEX registry.
>
> /Simon
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list
> saag@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/saag
>