Re: [Secdispatch] Can Composite sigs move back to LAMPS?

"Markku-Juhani O. Saarinen" <mjos@pqshield.com> Fri, 17 January 2020 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mjos@pqshield.com>
X-Original-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE5912001B for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:22:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pqshield-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmMLMBDVkl80 for <secdispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk1-x733.google.com (mail-qk1-x733.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::733]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781C112001A for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:22:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk1-x733.google.com with SMTP id c16so22454729qko.6 for <secdispatch@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:22:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pqshield-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6rwufNdlZ2fAldnWfjqEfwEwUELsDx5yZejpk5OWITw=; b=MyYYupoEsGCLvY4tST3Yti3RNQPzD5l8OsCL8cSTRH1Hx9JiLf/EoDNuDgV9ct91m/ 7Lrg8tMmd/l7w4lxPqsPHUxTe1kzyjCS+BfvO2XpkhcVNQUPHptxp5RJX/WJniNrof9t J717UBBKX+kHxWu9T2czniZB4zyrvor+RZOlvysE+wgUqXuh11vfr022fYtrvzX3ytMM NKkyNnZ/7YnZVLxNRBPWhXDS90R6ziUrvxuzmbP6nRML6/b3ReMUPdH3pdctUMhJ43qe ryLQUQawwxPEmtnwhkkoUpdO1ctp3K604eXdN3txI3lDYjS7IsMoVeQXzSPc4E7eH6Nm tubA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6rwufNdlZ2fAldnWfjqEfwEwUELsDx5yZejpk5OWITw=; b=ePuhjM7t5FYHhkSu5ri4TP0IQmodT5VB2tzurGvYH+Pnsy77NPVaxfyEklpmPMwZMQ pU/+4tVikUI51i2e3r6BPRYk9zFZxP5rmxcPFe6Hg8UZ72ANUxDThtJ3h0l3y4/fiyS3 TqwyzCuNi41oalHCu1kM1y2FPjavVmOSn/IqG1hUKmX7cFzx5iyHOtDz5QLg6NcR/8VD 5KYpS91K2iJQxAVsU+uk34pL8VyS6Sw5o3xbuwFe18HRr3FGweZi7hzjVyCf/lbP6CME XoYYTyfiN9Eu1bleTsejxWAQ9y77qo5TJuKgXBpADIGLvnnReWlskQrrjg9e9ErJ7E+0 TBTQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX8QvRs0cf5KeJ48nUWGdlmP0PZ1lwaIiytKOAeO9iBB5P3dvsQ eScZ518CbocrptLMM6ISLHTqU4hiiARim1ZVMOY6Mw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwNgmDqnlTTWiZuwLoG7RcVtlwSPJZ9slo1LcSQS/GBXWI1L8EEPbiufqXjF7lYHwgMuuOzijQ6ud2IXNafZzo=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:a5c7:: with SMTP id o190mr33497313qke.355.1579263766654; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 04:22:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <DM6PR11MB388377406A1AAEDCA397749C9B360@DM6PR11MB3883.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <70b221bb-bc39-52cc-f9e0-a84261afe473@cs.tcd.ie> <09B0CA53-BAAF-4139-8179-2A70ADE58632@isara.com> <c0f620d7-4e22-18a5-c168-f66b737cae86@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <c0f620d7-4e22-18a5-c168-f66b737cae86@cs.tcd.ie>
From: "Markku-Juhani O. Saarinen" <mjos@pqshield.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:22:35 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPwdP4PG3i5-_BuVMdH0iMcJCT40xejoM=J3dH=pPO61T-F4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Cc: Daniel Van Geest <Daniel.VanGeest@isara.com>, Mike Ounsworth <Mike.Ounsworth@entrustdatacard.com>, IETF SecDispatch <secdispatch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d183c9059c54ff45"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/QINdCMFhWI1CXBZ3p12psbVefh0>
Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] Can Composite sigs move back to LAMPS?
X-BeenThere: secdispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Dispatch <secdispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secdispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch>, <mailto:secdispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 12:22:49 -0000

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:11 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
My conclusion is that this stuff could only really be useful
> enough to justify the costs if we have PQ signature schemes
> that are considered stable enough to deploy but where we
> don't yet fully trust the algorithms to the point where we'd
> be happy to depend solely on those new algorithms.


Thanks for your support. That is exactly where we are and what the stated
purpose of draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs-02 is.

Cheers,
- markku

Dr. Markku-Juhani O. Saarinen <mjos@pqshield.com> PQShield, Oxford UK.