Thank you for the reply, it helps me understand that AES-256 is worthwhile.
--
Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =- (Camping this week!)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+i...@sandelman.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 1:08 AM
> To: Derek Atkins
> Cc: Paul Hoffman; ipsec@ietf.org; Paul Wouters; Tero Kivinen; Scott Fluhrer
> (sfluhrer)
> Subject: Re: [IPsec] 4307
Derek Atkins wrote:
>> The proposed change is based on the existence of quantum computers that
>> have a sufficient number of properly-interacting qbits. We have
>> literally no idea if those computers will ever exist. All current data
>> indicates that we will
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, Derek Atkins wrote:
Yeah, I also disagree with the demotion of AES-128 to MUST-. It's the
most widely deployed now, and when Q-C happens we can turn it off with a
config change and work to remove it at that time.
I think that is fair, so let me propose the following
On Tue, August 23, 2016 3:53 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
[snip]
> I may have misunderstood his proposal because he also wanted to demote
> AES-128 from MUST to MUST-. I object on the grounds that we have no idea
> if there will quantum-capable computers that can erode AES-128 in the
> foreseeable
On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:43, Derek Atkins wrote:
Paul,
On Tue, August 23, 2016 3:28 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate here, are you implying that we'll see
a
5-10-year lead time on quantum computer development sufficiently in
Paul,
On Tue, August 23, 2016 3:28 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
>
>> Just to play devil's advocate here, are you implying that we'll see a
>> 5-10-year lead time on quantum computer development sufficiently in
>> order
>> to spend those 5-10 years:
>>
> On 23 Aug 2016, at 9:32 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> On 23 Aug 2016, at 10:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>> I haven't heard any objection to making 128 bit key sizes MUST- and
>> 256 bit key sizes MUST.
>
> You can hear one
On 23 Aug 2016, at 12:12, Derek Atkins wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate here, are you implying that we'll see a
5-10-year lead time on quantum computer development sufficiently in
order
to spend those 5-10 years:
1) having this discussion again,
2) revving the documents
3) getting the
Paul,
On Tue, August 23, 2016 2:32 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2016, at 10:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>> I haven't heard any objection to making 128 bit key sizes MUST- and
>> 256 bit key sizes MUST.
>
> You can hear one now.
>
>> Answers that
On 23 Aug 2016, at 10:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Paul Wouters wrote:
I haven't heard any objection to making 128 bit key sizes MUST- and
256 bit key sizes MUST.
You can hear one now.
Answers that agree or disagree would be good
to hear.
The proposed change is based on
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016, Paul Wouters wrote:
I haven't heard any objection to making 128 bit key sizes MUST- and
256 bit key sizes MUST. Answers that agree or disagree would be good
to hear.
Paul
Actually, this is a very good reason to bumo the keysizes from 128 to
256. Currently in 7321bis and
12 matches
Mail list logo