Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Schemes
draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-06

Received changes through RFC Editor sync (changed state to RFC, created became rfc relationship between draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology and RFC 9794, changed IESG state to RFC Published)

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work done in this document, it was a relatively easy to read and understand for such a topic.

Some minor comments:

s/Post-Quantum Asymmetric Algorithm/Post-Quantum Asymmetric *Cryptographic* Algorithm/ to be similar to `Traditional Asymmetric Cryptographic Algorithm:`?

Should the obvious be stated that there is no sense in a "Post-Quantum Certificate" that is signed by traditional signature ?

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-04, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

For definitions of IANA review states, please see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/help/state/draft/iana-review

Thank you,

David Dong
IANA Services Sr. Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-12-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology@ietf.org, paul.hoffman@icann.org, paul.wouters@aiven.io, pqc@ietf.org, pquip-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Schemes) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Post-Quantum Use In Protocols WG
(pquip) to consider the following document: - 'Terminology for Post-Quantum
Traditional Hybrid Schemes'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-12-06. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  One aspect of the transition to post-quantum algorithms in
  cryptographic protocols is the development of hybrid schemes that
  incorporate both post-quantum and traditional asymmetric algorithms.
  This document defines terminology for such schemes.  It is intended
  to be used as a reference and, hopefully, to ensure consistency and
  clarity across different protocols, standards, and organisations.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was broad agreement. A few WG members asked for detailed answers to
questions in a specific format, but there was no general agreeement that the
document authors had to providd that.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
The use of terms like "post-quantum" and "quantum-resistant" were heavily
debated. In the end, there was general agreement to keep the commonly-used
terms and to list possibly-better synonyms in the draft.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
One WG member has expressed extreme discontent with the process of the WG Last
Call. The conflict seems to be more with the process (the authors did not give
line-by-line answers to their question) than with the WG consensus on the
terminology.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is not applicable here: it is a terminology document, not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
This document specifies terminology that might apply to to the TLS, IPsecME,
and LAMPS WGs, as well as the CFRG. It may also affect any non-WG documents
that talk about post-quantum hybrid schemes.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
None needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
It does not.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
None were needed.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes to all.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None seen in the security list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
Informational, which is appropriate for a terminology document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Didn't do this because it is a terminology document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

They have.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are two minor warnings that can be fixed later in the process.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
All references are informative, which is fine for an Informational document.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
 
None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations say "This document has no IANA actions." and that is corrct.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.

## Document History

1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
  few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

There was broad agreement. A few WG members asked for detailed answers to
questions in a specific format, but there was no general agreeement that the
document authors had to providd that.

2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
  the consensus was particularly rough?
 
The use of terms like "post-quantum" and "quantum-resistant" were heavily
debated. In the end, there was general agreement to keep the commonly-used
terms and to list possibly-better synonyms in the draft.

3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
  so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
  responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
  questionnaire is publicly available.)
 
One WG member has expressed extreme discontent with the process of the WG Last
Call. The conflict seems to be more with the process (the authors did not give
line-by-line answers to their question) than with the WG consensus on the
terminology.

4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
  the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
  plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
  either in the document itself (as [RFC 7942][3] recommends) or elsewhere
  (where)?

This is not applicable here: it is a terminology document, not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
  IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
  from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
  reviews took place.
 
This document specifies terminology that might apply to to the TLS, IPsecME,
and LAMPS WGs, as well as the CFRG. It may also affect any non-WG documents
that talk about post-quantum hybrid schemes.

6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
  such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
 
None needed.

7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
  been checked with any of the [recommended validation tools][4] for syntax and
  formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
  the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
  comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
  in [RFC 8342][5]?
 
It does not.

8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
  final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
  BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
 
None were needed.

## Document Shepherd Checks

9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
  document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
  to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

Yes to all.

10. Several IETF Areas have assembled [lists of common issues that their
    reviewers encounter][6]. For which areas have such issues been identified
    and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
    reviews?

None seen in the security list.

11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream ([Best
    Current Practice][12], [Proposed Standard, Internet Standard][13],
    [Informational, Experimental or Historic][14])? Why is this the proper type
    of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
   
Informational, which is appropriate for a terminology document.

12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
    property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in [BCP 79][7]? To
    the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
    not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
    to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Didn't do this because it is a terminology document.

13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
    listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
    is greater than five, please provide a justification.

They have.

14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the [idnits
    tool][8] is not enough; please review the ["Content Guidelines" on
    authors.ietf.org][15]. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
    some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

There are two minor warnings that can be fixed later in the process.

15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG
    Statement on Normative and Informative References][16].
   
All references are informative, which is fine for an Informational document.

16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
    the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
    references?
 
None.

17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP
    97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so,
    list them.
   
No.

18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
    submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
    If so, what is the plan for their completion?
   
No.

19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
    so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
    listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
    introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
    where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
   
No.

20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
    especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
    Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
    associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
    that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
    allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see [RFC 8126][11]).

The IANA considerations say "This document has no IANA actions." and that is corrct.

21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
    future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
    Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

None.