| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
Dear TGbt participants,
See below for a response to our liaison. Note in particular the last paragraph on providing more input to the CFRG.
Regards,
-Robert
From: Nick Sullivan <nicholas.sullivan@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2026 9:49 AM To: Stacey, Robert <robert.stacey@xxxxxxxxx>; peter@xxxxxxxxxx <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: cfrg-chairs@xxxxxxxx <cfrg-chairs@xxxxxxxx>; housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; sasecretary@xxxxxxxx <sasecretary@xxxxxxxx>; gilb_ieee@xxxxxxxx <gilb_ieee@xxxxxxxx>; asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx <asterjadhi@xxxxxxxxx>; mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx <mccann.stephen@xxxxxxxxx>; sorr@xxxxxxxxx <sorr@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: IEEE 802.11 liaison communication to IRTF regarding draft-vos-cfrg-pqpake Hi Robert, Peter,
Thanks for the liaison, and sorry for the slow reply. Here's where things stand on your three questions. On adoption: draft-vos-cfrg-pqpake is still an individual draft. CFRG takes on work through a call for adoption on its mailing list, and we haven't run one for this draft, so we can't say yet whether it will be adopted. It was presented at IETF 126 in July, and discussion has continued on the list since then. On timeline: we don't have dates, and CFRG doesn't work to fixed deadlines. If the draft is adopted, how long it takes to reach RG Last Call depends on how quickly the security analysis and reviews settle. After RG Last Call, the remaining steps (shepherd write-up, IRTF chair review, IRSG poll, IESG conflict review and RFC editing) typically take two months or more. On stability: until a document has been adopted and has passed RG Last Call, its content can still change, including the wire format, so we wouldn't consider it stable enough for another SDO to reference before then. The draft lists some open research questions itself, and its security analysis is still being discussed on the list. Also note that CFRG documents aren't IETF standards. This one is intended as an Informational RFC. The authors will present an update at the CFRG session at IETF 127 in San Francisco in November, and we'll discuss the draft there. 802.11 participants are welcome to join, in person or remotely. It would help us to hear from 802.11, ideally on the CFRG list, about what P802.11bt needs: a balanced PAKE, where both sides hold the password as with SAE today, or an augmented one, where the access point or server stores only a verifier; whether it has to be hybrid; any limits on round trips or message sizes; and when TGbt needs a stable reference. That input will shape whether and how CFRG takes this on. Best, Nick, for the CFRG chairs On Mon, Sep 28, 2026 03:05 PM, Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGBT list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGBT&A=1 |