Subject: [Cfrg] I-D Action: draft-hoffman-c2pq-05.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 07:19:23 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Crypto Forum RG of the IRTF.

        Title           : The Transition from Classical to Post-Quantum Cryptography
        Author          : Paul Hoffman
	Filename        : draft-hoffman-c2pq-05.txt
	Pages           : 17
	Date            : 2019-05-21

Abstract:
   Quantum computing is the study of computers that use quantum features
   in calculations.  For over 20 years, it has been known that if very
   large, specialized quantum computers could be built, they could have
   a devastating effect on asymmetric classical cryptographic algorithms
   such as RSA and elliptic curve signatures and key exchange, as well
   as (but in smaller scale) on symmetric cryptographic algorithms such
   as block ciphers, MACs, and hash functions.  There has already been a
   great deal of study on how to create algorithms that will resist
   large, specialized quantum computers, but so far, the properties of
   those algorithms make them onerous to adopt before they are needed.

   Small quantum computers are being built today, but it is still far
   from clear when large, specialized quantum computers will be built
   that can recover private or secret keys in classical algorithms at
   the key sizes commonly used today.  It is important to be able to
   predict when large, specialized quantum computers usable for
   cryptanalysis will be possible so that organization can change to
   post-quantum cryptographic algorithms well before they are needed.

   This document describes quantum computing, how it might be used to
   attack classical cryptographic algorithms, and possibly how to
   predict when large, specialized quantum computers will become
   feasible.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hoffman-c2pq/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hoffman-c2pq-05
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hoffman-c2pq-05

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hoffman-c2pq-05

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Paul Hoffman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 07:58:54 -0700

Greetings again. I had let the draft expire because it seemed like few 
people were interested in it. However, over the past few months, a bunch 
of people have said that they point colleagues to it, so it is probably 
worthwhile for me to keep it alive. At some point, CFRG might decide 
that it has enough material, and that the words adequately reflect the 
fact that the landscape will continue to change.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 21:45:16 -0400

Hi -

Things like this are why I was pushing at the CFRG's ambiguous status as 
a pseudo-WG.    In an RG, the right answer for this document is to flesh 
out what's currently missing, offer the document to the community ONLY 
for the correction of mistakes, and then publish as an Informational 
document of a research nature.  In the current CFRG the "few people are 
interested in it" is problematic in that its requiring immediate 
interest on things that may not be relevant for a year or two and that's 
just wrong for an RG.

I've read the document, and I think it's a good beginning to a survey 
paper to direct  or suggest IETF related (e.g. standards AND research) 
investigations on cryptography in the 2-5 year range.  It's (obviously - 
and marked as such) missing some flesh on the bones, but that's just 
additional work.

What I'd suggest is that the CFRG endorse the document (not ADOPT it 
like a WG might do), and ask Paul to finish it.  Once finished, I'd 
suggest no more than two passes to fix errors of fact (and not 
opinions), and then have the CFRG endorse it for publication as a RG paper.

What I would NOT do is have the CFRG adopt it - it's not a standard, nor 
is it (at least from my reading) destined to be a consensus paper.

Later Mike

On 5/21/2019 10:58 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> people were interested in it. However, over the past few months, a 
> bunch of people have said that they point colleagues to it, so it is 
> probably worthwhile for me to keep it alive. At some point, CFRG might 
> decide that it has enough material, and that the words adequately 
> reflect the fact that the landscape will continue to change.
>
> --Paul Hoffman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg