Derek Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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?
Forgive my ignorance here; my BSc in particle physics is ~20 years out of date.
(this %#@*$ internet thing distracted me...)
My understanding is we currently have a small number of qbits
"properly-interacting". I think that I read an article saying it was 4 or
so, but I just read that we are at 12 qbits in 2006, 28 in 2007 (maybe),
and >1000 in 2015 (maybe). On the other hand, "2 qubit silicon gate" in 2016.
I believe that we need 128 to interact to break AES-128?
I'm just trying understand how the revolution that will take us from ~12
to 128, won't take us to 256 the following week.
I feel kinda like we are re-arranging the chairs on the titanic here.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
