SLH-DSA

[loganaden]

Hi All,

I went through the draft. Are there any reasons to include only ML-DSA ?

Are you guys interested in supporting other options like SLH-DSA ?
I would like to quote this from trails of bits:

"
Previously known as SPHINCS+, SLH-DSA is a highly conservative quantum-resistant signature scheme. Unlike standards that rely on the hardness of lattice problems, such as ML-DSA (Dilithium), SLH-DSA depends on the security of SHA2 or SHA3, which have been extensively studied and are confidently considered secure against both classical and quantum attacks. While experts believe ML-DSA is secure, its resistance to quantum attackers is more difficult to analyze and could someday weaken with increasingly advanced attacks. In addition, unlike stateful hash-based schemes like LMS, SLH-DSA can safely function as a drop-in replacement for existing signature schemes such as ECDSA, EdDSA, and RSA-PSS.
"

I can send a PR for SLH-DSA assuming there is interest in having cryptographic agility ?

[msporny]

Yes, we are interested in adding SLH-DSA; it's fairly trivial to do, we just need to write the spec text for it.

[loganaden]

@msporny working on it.

[msporny]

@loganaden if you want to raise a PR on the spec to add it, just copy this entire section, rename the algorithm identifier:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/di-quantum-safe/#experimental-mldsa44-2024

and replace the MLDSA references with SLH-DSA references to start. We can go from there to fix issues/bugs.

[loganaden]

got it. working on it.