



Post-Quantum Use In Protocols                             K. Kwiatkowski
Internet-Draft                                              20 July 2025
Intended status: Informational                                          
Expires: 21 January 2026


          Guidance for migration to Post-Quantum Cryptography
                draft-kwiatkowski-pquip-pqc-migration-00

Abstract

   This document provides guidance on migration to post-quantum
   cryptography (PQC) in internet protocols.  It outlines the challenges
   and considerations that protocol designers and implementers should
   take into account when transitioning from traditional cryptographic
   algorithms to PQC algorithms, which are designed to be secure against
   quantum computer attacks.

   It is intended for cryptographic protocol designers within the IETF
   community, as well as technology developers and implementers
   responsible for deploying PQC standards.

About This Document

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Status information for this document may be found at
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kwiatkowski-pquip-pqc-
   migration/.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the Post-Quantum Use In
   Protocols Working Group mailing list (mailto:pquip@ietf.org), which
   is archived at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pqc/.
   Subscribe at https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pquip/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/kriskwiatkowski/draft-kwiatkowski-pqc-migration.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.




Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 21 January 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Revised BSD License text as
   described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Key exchange  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Digital signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  PQ/T hybrid digital signatures  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Infrastructure costs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   6.  Standards Compliance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   7.  Migration Pitfalls  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   8.  Conventions and Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

1.  Introduction

   Advances in quantum computing pose a growing threat to systems that
   rely on widely deployed internet security protocols, which use
   cryptographic mechanisms to secure communications, verify
   authenticity, and protect sensitive data at rest and in transit.
   While a cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC) capable of
   breaking these protections may still be years away, initiating the
   transition to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) now is essential to



Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   ensure adequate time for planning and implementation.

2.  Awareness

   Before embarking on the transition to post-quantum cryptography
   (PQC), organizations must first evaluate whether to begin the
   migration immediately or adopt a phased timeline.  This decision
   depends on factors such as the duration required for migration, the
   expected shelf-life of sensitive data, and the projected timeline for
   quantum threats.  Data with long-term confidentiality requirements
   may increase the urgency, as adversaries could collect encrypted
   information today and decrypt it in the future using a
   cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC).  Even in the
   absence of a direct harvest-now-decrypt-later threat, organizations
   must still prepare to protect data integrity and authenticity against
   future quantum-enabled attacks.

   To guide this process, organizations should clearly define their PQC
   migration objectives, starting with an assessment of their risk
   tolerance - how much risk they are willing to accept in safeguarding
   data and assets.  This assessment will shape the choice of PQC
   algorithms, protocols, and implementation paths.  It's important to
   recognize that PQC migration is not a one-off upgrade but a
   continuous effort that requires ongoing threat monitoring, periodic
   reassessments, and adaptability as quantum technology evolves.

3.  Key exchange

   Key exchange is a fundamental component of security protocols that
   allows two entities to securely exchange keys over an insecure
   channel to derive symmetric session keys.

   The development of cryptanalytically relevant quantum computers
   (CRQCs) threatens current systems, necessitating a migration to post-
   quantum cryptography (PQC).  A key concern driving this migration,
   particularly for key exchange, is the "harvest-now-decrypt-later"
   threat.  Adversaries may collect and store sensitive data encrypted
   with keys established using quantum-vulnerable methods today, with
   the intention of decrypting it later once CRQCs are available.  This
   threat specifically impacts the confidentiality of communications,
   which is protected by keys derived during the key exchange process.

   PQ/T hybrid KEMs are widely recommended because resilience that they
   offer: even if one of the underlying algorithms is broken (e.g., the
   traditional or post-quantum scheme), the confidentiality of the
   session remains protected as long as the other holds.  This property
   is essential in practice, since encrypted data captured today could
   be decrypted in the future if a single algorithm fails.  Migrating



Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   from PQ/T hybrid to post-quantum KEMs has lower cost comparing to
   digital signatures, as in most cases KEMs are ephemeral and used only
   during session setup, without long-term identity ties.  In contrast,
   signatures involve persistent keys, certificates, and complex trust
   infrastructure, making their transition more disruptive.

   The expectation is that importance of PQ/T hybrid KEMs will diminish
   in time as confidence in post-quantum algorithms grows.

4.  Digital signatures

   Digital signatures remain a vital component of cryptographic
   protocols, ensuring authenticity, integrity, and non-repudiation.  As
   such, post-quantum digital signature schemes are necessary in a
   future-proof internet infrastructure.  However, the urgency to deploy
   them is relatively lower compared to key encapsulation mechanisms
   (KEMs).

   Unlike key exchange, authentication cannot be broken retrospectively,
   meaning quantum-safe signatures are only needed once
   cryptanalytically relevant quantum computers (CRQCs) become
   available.  As a result, the migration to post-quantum digital
   signatures is less time-sensitive than for KEMs, allowing for a more
   deliberate and carefully planned transition.  Since post-quantum
   signature schemes often involve larger keys and signatures, greater
   computational overhead, and increased implementation complexity,
   their deployment may incur higher costs - reinforcing the importance
   of keeping the migration as simple and efficient as possible.

   TODO: migration strategies, hybrid signatures vs dual signatures,
   etc.

4.1.  PQ/T hybrid digital signatures

   PQ/T hybrid digital signatures, which combine traditional and post-
   quantum algorithms, aim to provide resilience against future quantum
   threats by ensuring that if either algorithm remains secure, the
   signature remains valid.  This dual-layer approach offers protection
   in the face of current uncertainty around newly standardized post-
   quantum schemes and implementations of them.  However, hybrid
   signatures introduce considerable implementation and operational
   complexity:

   *  The number of possible hybrid combinations leads to
      interoperability challenges and increased implementation burden.






Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   *  If one scheme is compromised, forgery is only a concern while the
      corresponding public key remains trusted—most systems already
      revoke or rotate compromised keys.

   *  Long-term protection through hybrids may be limited in practice
      due to standard key management practices.

   Instead of relying solely on hybrids, protocols should prioritize
   cryptographic agility-embedding algorithm identifiers in keys and
   supporting efficient key rollover.  While signature migration should
   be planned proactively, broad deployment of PQC signature schemes can
   be aligned with infrastructure readiness and the availability of
   well-vetted, efficient standards.

5.  Infrastructure costs

   Migrating to post-quantum cryptography (PQC) necessitates potentially
   significant updates to an organization's cryptographic
   infrastructure.  The process requires careful planning and resource
   allocation to address various financial and operational costs.

   A key aspect of PQC migration involves identifying and budgeting for
   discovery initiatives, which aim to understand the organization's
   cryptographic assets and their PQC relevancy.  This includes building
   a comprehensive inventory of cryptographic use and associated assets.
   The process of inventorying may require specific tools and methods,
   which also factor into the initial costs.

   A major cost driver is determining whether PQC updates can be
   implemented through software updates or will necessitate more
   expensive hardware replacements or upgrades.  Engaging with system
   vendors is crucial to confirm migration needs, inquire about the cost
   of new PQC solutions, and understand the anticipated business impact
   of implementation efforts.  For custom or niche systems,
   organizations may need to budget for the cost of developing internal
   PQC-compliant solutions.

   Specific infrastructure components and systems require updates,
   leading to associated costs:












Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 5]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   *  Network Protocols and Systems: Protocols like TLS, SSH, and QUIC,
      widely used in telecom networks and general IT infrastructure,
      need to integrate PQC for key exchange and authentication.  While
      the computational performance impact of PQC Key Encapsulation
      Mechanisms (KEMs) like ML-KEM on handshake speed is often minimal
      or even faster compared to traditional methods, the size of PQC
      artifacts is much larger, which can lead to increased bandwidth
      usage, increased number of extra round trips and potential delays.
      While tweaking network parameters can alleviate some issues, it
      involves trade-offs, which relate to operational network costs.

   *  Message Processing: Post-quantum signature algorithms often handle
      messages differently from the traditional "digest-then-sign"
      model, typically processing the entire message internally.  This
      can degrade performance for large messages, particularly when
      streaming data to constrained signing environments such as HSMs
      via interfaces like PKCS#11.  While pre-hashing messages can
      mitigate performance issues, it introduces additional
      complexity—requiring applications to adapt to algorithms that
      support streaming processing to reduce memory usage.  Managing
      these varied processing approaches across systems increases both
      development and operational overhead.

   *  Public Key Infrastructure (PKI): The PKI supporting systems needs
      to be updated to handle PQC keys and certificates.  This involves
      changes to Certificate Authorities (CAs), certificate formats
      (e.g., X.509), and related processes.  Various hybrid certificate
      formats are being explored to facilitate the transition, each with
      different complexity and potential overhead.  The deployment of
      new Trust Anchors can also be a time-consuming and costly process.

   *  Constrained Devices: Devices with long operational lifetimes in
      environments like industrial control systems, vehicles,
      satellites, smart meters, and smart cards present unique
      challenges and potential costs.  Upgrading cryptographic
      capabilities on such devices may be difficult or even impossible
      due to resource constraints, physical location, or immutability
      features, potentially requiring expensive field updates or device
      replacement.  For guidance on integrating Post-Quantum
      Cryptography (PQC) into such constrained environments, see
      [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-hsm-constrained].

   *  Hybrid Implementations: While motivated by security concerns
      during the transition period, hybrid scheme strategies can
      introduce increased complexity and potential overhead in terms of
      data size.  The combinatorial explosion of combining various
      traditional and PQC schemes adds complexity to implementation and
      testing.



Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 6]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   *  Continuous monitoring and evaluation are also necessary to track
      migration progress and adapt to evolving quantum capabilities,
      requiring ongoing resource commitment and increasing hardware
      cost.

   In addition to complexity, PQ/T hybrid schemes can incur higher
   migration costs.  Organizations adopting hybrids will eventually need
   to migrate again to pure post-quantum schemes once confidence in
   these algorithms solidifies, deferring some costs rather than
   eliminating them.  This means maintaining dual algorithm
   infrastructure (e.g., certificate chains, key management, validation
   logic) during the hybrid phase, followed by another transition with
   its own cost, testing, and operational risks.  For many deployments-
   especially constrained or high-assurance environments—this two-step
   migration may be more burdensome than a single, well-timed switch to
   a vetted post-quantum alternative.

   Adopting principles like cryptographic agility is highlighted as a
   way to manage costs in the long term by designing systems that can
   undergo multiple cryptographic transitions without major
   architectural changes, thereby reducing the cost of future updates.
   However, achieving true agility requires effort in standardization
   and implementation to support simultaneous use or dynamic negotiation
   of algorithms.

6.  Standards Compliance

   Protocol designers are encouraged to prioritize solutions that
   conform to established, widely trusted standards such as FIPS.  This
   helps ensure compatibility with regulatory requirements and
   facilitates future certification.  Migration strategies should align
   with guidance such as CMVP, and anticipate the certification process
   for post-quantum algorithms.

   With the NIST standardization of post-quantum algorithms (e.g.,
   [NIST-FIPS-203], [NIST-FIPS-204], [NIST-FIPS-205] and
   [NIST-SP-800-208]), the certification pathway is becoming clearer and
   more structured.  However, during the transitional period—while post-
   quantum implementations mature—it may be beneficial to adopt PQC/T
   approaches.  These offer several advantages:

   *  They provide defense in depth by enabling fallback to a well-
      established, thoroughly vetted implementations of traditional
      schemes.







Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 7]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   *  Since the certification process is typically lengthy, using
      already-certified traditional implementations alongside post-
      quantum algorithms still undergoing certification is a practical
      approach for deployments that require approved component schemes.

   NIST guidance documents such as [NIST-SP-800-56C] and
   [NIST-SP-800-135] offer precedents for this approach.  For example,
   in key agreement schemes, hybrid shared secrets can be formed by
   combining output from a NIST-approved algorithm with that of a non-
   approved one.  [NIST-SP-800-56C] specifically endorses simple
   concatenation as an acceptable method for deriving hybrid shared
   secrets, provided at least one component is generated by an approved
   mechanism.

7.  Migration Pitfalls

   Several practices should be avoided during PQC migration:

   *  Key reuse across modes: Using the same keypair for PQ/T hybrid and
      traditional signatures risks downgrade attacks.

   *  Dynamic algorithm negotiation: Negotiating algorithm types at
      runtime (e.g., in TLS) can allow downgrade or confusion attacks.
      Algorithm identifiers should be part of the public key structure.

   *  Excessive hybridization: Supporting too many hybrid combinations
      introduces combinatorial complexity and compatibility issues.

   *  Ignoring key lifecycle: Systems that do not account for key
      expiration and revocation are particularly vulnerable in post-
      quantum scenarios.

   Robust protocol design, infrastructure readiness, and clear
   separation of cryptographic roles are essential to avoid these anti-
   patterns.

8.  Conventions and Definitions

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
   BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all
   capitals, as shown here.

9.  Security Considerations

   TODO




Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 8]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


10.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

   [rfc7748]  Langley, A., Hamburg, M., and S. Turner, "Elliptic Curves
              for Security", RFC 7748, DOI 10.17487/RFC7748, January
              2016, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7748>.

   [RFC8174]  Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC
              2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174,
              May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

   [rfc9794]  Driscoll, F., Parsons, M., and B. Hale, "Terminology for
              Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Schemes", RFC 9794,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9794, June 2025,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9794>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-hsm-constrained]
              Reddy.K, T., Wing, D., S, B., and K. Kwiatkowski,
              "Adapting Constrained Devices for Post-Quantum
              Cryptography", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-pquip-pqc-hsm-constrained-01, 4 July 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-pquip-
              pqc-hsm-constrained-01>.

   [NIST-FIPS-203]
              "Module-lattice-based key-encapsulation mechanism
              standard", National Institute of Standards and Technology
              (U.S.), DOI 10.6028/nist.fips.203, August 2024,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.fips.203>.

   [NIST-FIPS-204]
              "Module-lattice-based digital signature standard",
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.),
              DOI 10.6028/nist.fips.204, August 2024,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.fips.204>.




Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026                [Page 9]

Internet-Draft               PQUIP-MIGRATION                   July 2025


   [NIST-FIPS-205]
              "Stateless hash-based digital signature standard",
              National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S.),
              DOI 10.6028/nist.fips.205, August 2024,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.fips.205>.

   [NIST-SP-800-135]
              Dang, Q., "Recommendation for existing application-
              specific key derivation functions", National Institute of
              Standards and Technology, DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-135r1,
              2011, <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-135r1>.

   [NIST-SP-800-208]
              Cooper, D., Apon, D., Dang, Q., Davidson, M., Dworkin, M.,
              and C. Miller, "Recommendation for Stateful Hash-Based
              Signature Schemes", National Institute of Standards and
              Technology, DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-208, October 2020,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-208>.

   [NIST-SP-800-56C]
              Barker, E., Chen, L., and R. Davis, "Recommendation for
              Key-Derivation Methods in Key-Establishment Schemes",
              National Institute of Standards and Technology,
              DOI 10.6028/nist.sp.800-56cr2, August 2020,
              <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.sp.800-56cr2>.

   [tlsiana]  Salowey, J. A. and S. Turner, "IANA Registry Updates for
              TLS and DTLS", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-
              ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-14, 16 June 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc8447bis-14>.

Author's Address

   Kris Kwiatkowski
   Email: kris@amongbytes.com















Kwiatkowski              Expires 21 January 2026               [Page 10]
