Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-ipsecme-10-00: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ipsecme/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There are some typos (s/MIT/MTI) and bits of English that need to be tidied up. I have a suggestion about this bit of work: "IKEv1 using shared secret authentication was partially resistance to quantum computers. IKEv2 removed this feature to make the protocol more usable. The working group will add a mode to IKEv2 or otherwise modify IKEv2 to have similar quantum resistant properties than IKEv1 had." My suggestion is twofold: 1) - s/will add/will consider adding/ and to add to the end: 2) "In doing this work the WG will consider ongoing work on quantum-resistance in the CFRG, and whether it is better to re-instate the same level of resistance that was present in IKEv1 or to wait for more recent work (e.g. in CFRG) to mature." The reason I suggest this is that it's possible the WG might conclude that it's better to wait for some newer QR stuff from CFRG. The current wording seems to commit the WG to firing ahead anyway, and we might overall be better if there are fewer QR mechanisms proposed, rather than adding some now when it might be better to wait a while longer. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
