Hi,

> Hi all,
> 
> Following the last IETF meeting, we would like to take the following
> direction for our draft:
> 
> 1. Negotiation: use KE payload as described in
> draft-tjhai-ipsecme-hybrid-qske-ikev2-01. The main reason is backward
> compatibility. Not all IKEv2 implementations out there are
> RFC7296-compliant, while it is theoretically possible to upgrade them,
> but we cannot guarantee that all of them would be upgraded. With the
> approach described in draft-tjhai-ipsecme-hybrid-qske-ikev2-01, there
> won't be any issues with backward compatibility.

Well, this was discussed on the list and it is my impression, that
those who expressed their opinion (Tero [1], PaulW [2], myself [3]) 
prefer to re-use existing mechanism. I cannot recall that anybody
on the list or in London argued for using KE payload for negotiation.
Have I missed something?

I understand your concern about existence of non-compliant
implementations, but in my opinion adding QSKE into IKEv2
is not an immediate task, so there must be plenty of time
for vendors to fix their implementations. I don't want to 
introduce new negotiation mechanism when we already
have one that was specially designed for this purpose.

> 2. There appeared to be a consensus in using an intermediary stage,
> i.e. IKE_AUX, to transport the post-quantum key exchange payload.

Agree.

> 3. There was also a suggestion in using a new payload type, e.g. PQKE
> or QSKE, to carry the post-quantum key exchange payload.

I believe there will be no need for new payload if existing negotiation
mechanism is re-used. What is the reason for introduction of new payload?

> What do people of think of this approach?
> 
> Thanks,
> CJ

Regards,
Valery.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/lW4cFBLagNMdAx2VOSrz1z8VJF0
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/XqhkCN4u5vpRugE_Bg_TkP-hDGs
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/jahWqh_dvPkqAXnA4-C9LndtWWk


_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec

Reply via email to