Hi, I'm in favour of standardizing this work and am willing to review the document(s). I don't have a view on the best way to achieve this, but I think that the work would benefit from discussion on the list. There are a number of open questions in my mind, including the following: - Should this be QKD only, or PFS through generic OTP? - Should this use PAK-DH? (there is a stronger argument for it if this is about a generic solution) - Should there be a standardized structure to the Key ID? (Again, not needed for direct QKD) - What is the best way to derive the keying material?
Tony On 02/12/14 22:49, Rodney Van Meter wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry to be a little slow to reply. I was offline over Thanksgiving, just > saw the messages yesterday afternoon. > > Of course I favor adoption, and am willing to work with anyone who can > contribute to the development of an appropriate protocol. Momentum seems to > be toward a version supporting a variety of out-of-band mechanisms, and Iβm > willing to work in that direction. > > Shota is looking in to the numerous issues I detailed in the long message > right after IETF. > > βRod > >> On Dec 2, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Yaron Sheffer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Here's a quick reminder to speak up if you're interested in this document >> and are willing to contribute as co-author or reviewer. >> >> Thanks, >> Yaron >> >> On 11/25/2014 10:06 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote: >>> <chair hats on> >>> >>> Greetings again. There is a small emerging industry of crypto solutions >>> that transmit keys using Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), and then use those >>> keys for classical high-speed encryption. Several such solutions are using >>> IKE, and there is a perceived need to standardize this usage. If so, that >>> standardization should be done in this Working Group. >>> >>> If you agree with the need to standardize this usage, and believe that >>> draft-nagayama-ipsecme-ipsec-with-qkd is likely to be a good starting place >>> for that standardization, and are willing to review and contribute text to >>> the document if it is adopted by the WG, please say so on the list. This WG >>> has a history of adopting documents but then not having enough reviewers >>> for us to feel confident that we are making a good standard, so we need to >>> see a reasonable number of actively interested people before we adopt the >>> document. If it is not adopted, the authors can ask for it to be published >>> as an RFC through individual submission or by the Independent Submissions >>> Editor. >>> >>> Please reply by December 8, 2015. >>> >>> --Paul Hoffman and Yaron Sheffer >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IPsec mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> IPsec mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
