Re: [lamps] Spencer Dawkins' No Objection on charter-ietf-lamps-02-00: (with COMMENT)

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

> On May 23, 2018, at 3:40 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>   My understanding is that the intention is "near-term from now." The idea 
>    is that LAMPS should develop something that you could use, say, next 
>    year to encrypt email you send so that, 15 years from now when someone 
>    finally builds a 4,000 qubit machine, they can't dig out your (then) 
>    14-year-old email and decrypt it.
> 
> Kenny Paterson gave a talk at a recent IETF where he said, basically, that the IETF should wait until NIST is done with their post-quantum evaluation/competition.  Are we sure we want to disagree with him?  Or is it just because digest-based signatures are well-understood that we're willing to do so.

Rich:

That is not quite what he said.  Kenny said that we should not adopt a post-quantum secure algorithm.  Kenny did not say we should not find ways to use pre-shared secrets to bolster the security of the techniques we are already using.

Another example where we are mixing the pre-shared secret is draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2.

Russ