Re: [Secdispatch] [EXTERNAL] Re: IETF117 - Call for topics

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 22/06/2023 21:31, Mike Ounsworth wrote:
> Hey Stephen,
> 
> We've been at this for months 

Months? Feels a lot more like decades have been taken up with
folk pushing back against PKI complexity:-)

> and I clearly still don't have any idea
> what you mean by "evolving PKI in the face of a CRQC". Maybe I'm
> overly dense and this is perfectly clear to everyone else, but I
> suspect not.

I apologise for being unclear of course.

> (Nearly) everyone else seems to agree that that means adding OIDs /
> codepoints / JWA names for NIST PQC algs, 

That bit's fine.

> with hybrid version of them
> as a bridge, 

That bit's not convincing for me, for signatures.

> and otherwise carrying on as usual. But you seem to have
> something completely different in mind. I can't decypher what it is
> you're looking for because you seem to be taking a "I'll know it when
> I see it" approach, which is a borderline useless thing to put as an
> engineering design requirement.

I don't agree with the above, but it is fair to describe me
as somewhat of a hurler on the ditch(*). OTOH, sometimes that
perspective has value.

> You obviously see something that the rest of us are missing, 

Were I alone in thinking adding more complexity to x.509
based code is a good plan, that'd be fair. I doubt I am
though.

> and I
> strongly value your experience here. So can you please write down
> concretely and specifically (maybe in the form of an I-D) what
> "evolving PKI in the face of a CRQC" means to you so that we can all
> get on the same page?

That however is fair. If a relevantly scoped BoF looks like
happening, I'm happy to commit to writing down ideas.

Cheers,
S.

(*) https://www.yourdictionary.com/hurler-on-the-ditch


> 
> --- Mike Ounsworth
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell
> <[e-mail]> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 1:06 PM To:
> Mike Ounsworth <[e-mail]>; Yoav Nir
> <[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> Cc:
> David Woodhouse <[e-mail]>; Rifaat Shekh-Yusef
> <[e-mail]>; secdispatch <[e-mail]> 
> Subject: Re: [Secdispatch] [EXTERNAL] Re: IETF117 - Call for topics
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 22/06/2023 19:01, Mike Ounsworth wrote:
>> I also support a BoF about hybrid signatures.
> 
> FWIW: I would not support the above. The BoF I think we need would
> address evolving PKI in the face of a CRQC.
> 
> Discussion of hybrid signatures would be a part of that, but just a
> part.
> 
> Cheers, S. Any email and files/attachments transmitted with it are
> confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity to whom they are addressed. If this message has been sent to
> you in error, you must not copy, distribute or disclose of the
> information it contains. Please notify Entrust immediately and delete
> the message from your system.