Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-09

I'm talking about the ongoing NIST quantum cryptography competition, which
targets at the lowest level security equivalent to AES-128.

On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 10:24 AM Uri Blumenthal <uri@mit.edu> wrote:

> NIST produces standards and recommendations. US government organizations
> and companies doing business with them are usually required to comply.
> Organizations and businesses (both US and non-US) that are not bound by US
> regulations, often pay attention to what NIST recommends.
>
> To repeat myself, it mages sense to add reference to the NIST levels, even
> if Watson doesn't insist. ;-)
>
> On Dec 25, 2019, at 12:29, Valery Smyslov <valery@smyslov.net> wrote:
>
> 
>
> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 3:57 AM Uri Blumenthal <uri@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> NIST standards are mandatory for a subset of US citizens. But enough of
> businesses outside the US pay attention to what NIST says to make adding
> the reference relevant and useful.
>
>
>
> It's not about standards, it's about the competition and the relevant
> security level definitions. Not that I feel strongly about it, just a
> suggestion..
>
>
>
>           Then I'm a bit confused. What competition do you mean?
>
>
>
>           Regards,
>
>           Valery.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 25, 2019, at 01:52, Valery Smyslov <svan@elvis.ru> wrote:
>
> 
>
> Hi Watson,
>
>
>
> thank you for spending your time on this review in Christmas Eve.
>
>
>
> The capitalization issue has been already noticed and fixed.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure the draft should mention NIST levels, because
>
> they are relevant mostly for US customers. I think that
>
> generic recommendations on key sizes are more appropriate
>
> for this document.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Valery.
>
>
>
> Damn misclick. I meant With Nits.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 8:02 PM Watson Ladd via Datatracker <
> noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Watson Ladd
> Review result: Not Ready
>
> Twas the night before Christmas
> when all through the house
> someone was desperately trying to get a review done on time.
>
> I didn't see anything wrong per se in the draft itself, but I found the
> capitalization of quantum computer an odd choice. IKEv2 is a complicated
> protocol, and I am not 100% sure that this draft does what we want it to:
> It
> would be great if someone could check very carefully in some symbolic
> model,
> ala what has been done in TLS. The guidance on sizes seems to rule out NIST
> level 1, but not any higher levels: might be worth calling out this
> explicitly.
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
> --Rousseau.
>
> _______________________________________________
> secdir mailing list
> secdir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir
> wiki: http://tools.ietf.org/area/sec/trac/wiki/SecDirReview
>
>
>
> --
>
> "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
> --Rousseau..
>
>

-- 
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.