search

open-quantum-safe / liboqs

C library for prototyping and experimenting with quantum-resistant cryptography
https://openquantumsafe.org/
Other
1.91k stars 465 forks source link

0.11.0 release candidate 1 #1925

Closed SWilson4 closed 1 month ago

SWilson4 commented 2 months ago

Please see the associated pre-release: https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/releases/tag/0.11.0-rc1

SWilson4 commented 2 months ago

OK, I'm not asked for review, but there's at least one comment I have to make: Shouldn't this trigger all CI?

You certainly should have been; I simply missed adding reviewers. :)

It triggered the extended and oqs-provider release tests as well as all of the standard (PR) tests. The former don't show up here since they were triggered by the release event and not by the pull_request event.

Here's the liboqs run: https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/liboqs/actions/runs/10857298451

and here's the downstream run in provider: https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/oqs-provider/actions/runs/10857300499

beldmit commented 2 months ago

Do you plan to land the final version of ML-DSA later or the current version is already the final one?

baentsch commented 2 months ago

Do you plan to land the final version of ML-DSA later or the current version is already the final one?

Later on, see #1919. The current version is still 'ipd'.

beldmit commented 2 months ago

Great! Do you plan to land it in 0.11 or later?

baentsch commented 2 months ago

Decision was to push it to 0.12.0.

beldmit commented 2 months ago

Thanks for clarification!

SWilson4 commented 2 months ago

LGTM. But is this meant to land or only when final?

Only when final.

Looks good! One suggestion for wording around Kyber Round 3 but otherwise good to go.

Perfect, I'll make the change in the release notes when updating the version string to remove "-rc1".

baentsch commented 2 months ago

As discussed yesterday (to give feedback on testing intentions) I don't see a good reason to test this with oqsprovider until we have re-established functional parity with CF again, see also https://github.com/openssl/project/issues/844. Realistically I don't see a risk there though, just need to wait a bit until @bhess is back from ICMC. Any other thoughts, @SWilson4 @praveksharma (also as I'm looking to you for doing the actual oqsprovider release as well as any possible further downstream releases)?

SWilson4 commented 2 months ago

In an in-person meeting with @dstebila and @praveksharma earlier this week, we agreed to hold 0.11.0 until https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/oqs-provider/issues/503 / https://github.com/open-quantum-safe/oqs-provider/pull/524 are resolved / tested to enable thorough testing of ML-KEM.

SWilson4 commented 1 month ago

Closing as #1939 has landed.