On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 08:17:11PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On 9/13/2013 6:20 PM, Werner Koch wrote: > > No, I am not aware of any discussions. QC resistant algorithms are not > > yet something we need to rush for. > > Although it hasn't hit the IETF WG mailing list, I know that some list > participants have had intermittent off-list conversations about lattice > cryptography and other QC-resistant crypto. I wouldn't say that it's a > subject of active discussion within the WG, but some individual WG > members are definitely keeping an eye on it. > > And let me give a big "d'accord!" to Werner's "we don't need to rush."
On the one hand, we don't need to rush. On the other, it is good to see that people are thinking ahead, because I don't want to see matters come to a state in which we *do* need to rush. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mw...@iupui.edu Machines should not be friendly. Machines should be obedient.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
