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

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Backing up slightly ... my ballot set off a pretty interesting discussion,
but I didn't want to lose sight of my point, which was

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 2:36 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 5/23/18 1:13 PM, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
> > 4. Specify the use of a pre-shared key (PSK) along with other key
> > management techniques with supported by the Cryptographic Message
> > Syntax (CMS) as a near-term mechanism to protect present day
> > communication from the future invention of a large-scale quantum
> > computer.
> >
> > I found it confusing because "near-term" isn't "near-term from now", it's
> > "near-term after the invention of quantum computing destroys
> civilization.
>
> 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.
>

OK, that sounds like a plan, but it's not the way I understood the text,
and I note that the sentence makes more sense to me without "near-term",
resulting in

 "4. Specify the use of a pre-shared key (PSK) along with other key
management techniques with supported by the Cryptographic Message
Syntax (CMS) as a mechanism to protect present day
communication from the future invention of a large-scale quantum
computer."

which I would have read as saying what Adam said it means.

Do the right thing, of course ;-)

Spencer