I think we should definitely add a discussion around this to the Berlin agenda.
>From our end, we definitely want to see some measures to add quantum
>resistance into IKEv2 to promote the adoption of IKEv2 over IKEv1 for clients
>that are concerned. I think draft-fluhrer-qr-ikev2 provides a good
Hi,
Not necessary. In particular, the current draft allows to detect
OOB key mismatch and to act gracefully in this situation.
And I don't think it is far too complicated.
Current draft does, but there has been other proposals which did not.
The current draft is also very costly and allows v
> -Original Message-
> From: Tero Kivinen [mailto:kivi...@iki.fi]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 8:44 AM
> To: Valery Smyslov
> Cc: David McGrew (mcgrew); IPsecME WG; Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer);
> p...@nohats.ca; Waltermire, David A. (Fed); Panos Kampanakis (pkampana)
> Subject: Re: [IPsec]
[chair hat off]
Valery Smyslov writes:
> I think it is a bit early to discuss particular approaches,
> before the WG makes a decision to adopt the document.
Yes and no.
It is too early to think about actual protocol decisions, but we need
to know whether current draft is suitable for protocol se
Hi,
just to reiterate my position in light of this questionnaire:
This has been a good discussion so far. There is work to be done to address the
issues raised.
Getting back to the call for adoption, I'd like to see feedback on the following questions to better understand where
consensus is
Hi Tero,
I think it is a bit early to discuss particular approaches,
before the WG makes a decision to adopt the document.
However, just for the record (see below).
Earlier I have proposed very simple method where the IKE_SA_INIT
contains just some kind of notification messages identifying the
