Paul,
On Tue, August 23, 2016 2:32 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2016, at 10:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>> I haven't heard any objection to making 128 bit key sizes MUST- and
>> 256 bit key sizes MUST.
>
> You can hear one now.
>
>> Answers that agree or disagree would be good
>> to hear.
>
> The proposed change is based on the existence of quantum computers that
> have a sufficient number of properly-interacting qbits. We have
> literally no idea if those computers will ever exist. All current data
> indicates that we will see the progressing of "sufficient number" and
> "properly-interacting" and be able to increase key sizes well ahead of
> widespread use of quantum computers.
Just to play devil's advocate here, are you implying that we'll see a
5-10-year lead time on quantum computer development sufficiently in order
to spend those 5-10 years:
1) having this discussion again,
2) revving the documents
3) getting the revved documents through the process
4) getting the revved documents published
5) getting the revved documents implemented
6) getting that new implementation into the field, and (most importantly)
7) getting the OLD hardware decommissioned?
I think it would be a good 5 years just to get through step 6, let alone
getting to step 7. I suspect step 7 is yet another 5-10 years beyond step
6 (and I feel like I'm being generous).
So if we assume that quantum computers WILL, eventually, have a sufficient
number of properly-interacting qbits, then the question is when do we
think that will occur, and when do we need to start the process to update
such that we get to step 7 before the quantum computers arrive?
(I take it from your email that you disagree with this assumption, which
is fine, but I believe this is the assumption from which these all occur)
Also note that MTI does not imply MTU/MTD. (Use/Deploy). But I know you
knew that.
> --Paul Hoffman
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
[email protected] www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
