Re: [rt.icann.org #3528] FW: General Request for Assignments (ppp-numbers)

[Dropping IANA from the discussion until we have consensus; they're
plenty busy as it is.]

[Vern: please consider adding [email protected] and [email protected]
to your response.  Though you did post on an open list, I'm reluctant
to add addresses to the cc list without permission.  My response,
though, can be copied freely.]

Vernon Schryver writes:
> Judging from the last time I tried to reply to you, you may wait a long
> time for a response from me.  I am reluctant to leap through

Don't worry about it.  I asked IANA to forward the information along
to this list for comment.  Once there's some consensus (and I suspect
this will be quickly enough), I'll send a reply back, and I'll deal
with whatever crufty spam-elimination nonsense they're using.

> > > 		  draft-ghernaouti-sfaxi-ppp-qkd-00.txt
> 
> Why isn't that draft in the familiar place on ftp.isi.edu? 
> Why can't I find it at
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/idindex.cgi?command=search_id
> Is it a real (i.e. officiall published) I-D?

I believe we're looking at the only copy of it.

> >   5-  QKD phase:      
> >     a.  The source and the detector share a secret key exchanged 
> >         using quantum cryptography
> >     b.  When the secret key is ready go to Network phase

Well, that's not quite true.  There's also the completely baffling
ECP-QKD key option.  If you're using some external mechanism to
exchange keys, I don't see how or why you need to pass the key along
as a configuration option.  That makes no sense.  It clearly destroys
whatever goodness you might have hoped to get from the original key
exchange, because you've just revealed the shared secret.

Worse still, it specifies a key with no algorithm!  How on Earth can a
key be used without some agreed algorithm?

And even more mysterious: of what possible use is a "one time pad?"
This implies that you could send up to 64KB worth of payload on the
link.  Period.  That's a pittance of data.  How is it ever useful?

> It is hard to see how ECP and quantum cryptography could interact
> directly.  I can see how one might use quantum cryptography to choose
> a key that could then be used with PPP-ECP, but I don't see why PPP
> needs any changes.  What is the difference as far as PPP is concerned
> between exchanging keys with quantum cryptography and with plain old
> telephones?

Exactly.  That's what I said at the start: since it clearly requires
careful installation of special-purpose hardware dedicated between the
two peers, I don't see why it can't be settled by mutual consent,
rather than requiring negotiation.

Anyway, I agree that the submitter hasn't even approached the burden
of disclosing what the new option might do, and thus we can't say it
has received any sort of review.

Any disagreement amongst those reading?

-- 
James Carlson, KISS Network                    <[email protected]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

_______________________________________________
Pppext mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pppext