[openpgp] Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc [was: Re : I-D Action: draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-08.txt]
Heiko Schäfer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.openpgp |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Aron, all, > After gathering all the feedback, we decided to simplify the guidance, and consistently remove the remaining statements regarding sub-key selection. > This is reflected in the editor copy [1]. I agree with removing guidance, while consensus is clearly not in immediate reach. Thank you for diligently working towards getting this draft out the door soon! I look forward to seeing it finalized. > We thank the people involved in this discussion and ask them to review this change. I'm happy with the draft, as is. But I do wonder idly if it would be possible and useful to add some kind of informational text that clarifies that senders can consider encrypting only to PQ(/T) keys to achieve post-quantum security, when a sender encounters a case where it finds this possible. Just to state, in the most general of terms, that senders *can* apply such policy decisions, and might want to. But without prescribing any particular approach. Thanks, Heiko PS: FWIW, in the experimental "rsop-pqc" implementation, I have decided to adjust key selection for encryption as follows: For each recipient certificate, if any valid PQC encryption keys exist, rsop now encrypts only to the set of valid PQC subkeys, while ignoring any non-PQC subkeys. While this is somewhat arbitrary, and I look forward to one day implementing official guidance instead, this seems like a reasonable interim solution. I assume most recipients will want this kind of approach to be taken. _______________________________________________ openpgp mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]