[saag] Re: [Ext] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02

> On Feb 14, 2025, at 10:43, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> The recent past (eg non-pq) shows a narrowing of algorithms to mostly be 1 NIST and 1 non-NIST algorithm.
> I don't see this document changing that. Of course, the non-NIST set of algorithms doesn't have the oversight
> from a NIST-like body, so we will likely have more arguments on which non-NIST algorithm is preferred. This
> draft basically just re-states we dont want a zillion non-NIST algorithms.
>  
> You cannot draw a trend from one recent, fractious, discussion.

I am not sure what you are referring to.

I was referring to an apparent convergence for non-pq cryptography (inside and outside IETF) to support P256-AES-GCM and 25519-POLY-CHACHA.

> If the draft “re” states that we don’t want a zillion non-NIST algorithms, as opposed to what, a handful of NIST ones?, that’s wrong because we never made explicit consensus to favor NIST. We were waiting for NIST, which is different.

That is not what i said in my email nor what the draft states. However, from a practical point of view, it does seem that the two largest fractions in cryptography for the last decade have been NIST and Western non-NIST camps (ironically, with quite the overlap when considering NIST competition participants) and the IETF, mostly driven by industry has picked one from each camp.

I am not sure how this discussion fits with the draft discussion though. What text do you think needs changing and what do you suggest as change ?

Paul

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]