Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2-10: No Objection
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.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-qr-ikev2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this document should formally update RFC 7296. Was that discussed in the WG? I think the citation for [NISTPQCFP] should link to the actual call for proposals. Section 6: "In addition, the policy SHOULD be set to negotiate only quantum- resistant symmetric algorithms; while this RFC doesn't claim to give advice as to what algorithms are secure (as that may change based on future cryptographical results), below is a list of defined IKEv2 and IPsec algorithms that should not be used, as they are known to provide less than 128 bits of post-quantum security" This paragraph mixes normative SHOULD with non-normative "should not" in the same paragraph. I was wondering if that is intentional. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
