On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 at 00:18, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > tirumal reddy <[email protected]> wrote: > >> In the building automation space, I'm concerned. > >> There are fewer consortia, and the people producing equipment are > less > >> network focused. > >> > >> I propose that we wait for LAMPS to finish composite-kem, and then > we > >> start a > >> quantum-safe version of iot-profile. > > > If you are referring to > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-kem/, > TLS > > only uses composite KEM for ephemeral key exchange and KEM-based > > authentication is not adopted by the TLS WG. > > okay, so fair enough... > We can't finish a quantum-safe version of iot-profile until TLS has > something > that we can reference. We can start it. > > Are you agreeing that we shouldn't do quantum-safety in this document? > Yes, see if you can reference to draft-ietf-pquip-pqc-hsm-constrained in Section 21 to signal awareness of ongoing work in adapting PQC to constrained environments. However, this draft may take time to mature, and I don’t want it to delay progress here. Cheers, -Tiru > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
