Quantum computers are no longer a distant curiosity. Their growing power threatens to render the cryptographic foundations of the internet obsolete, and governments worldwide are racing to safeguard the digital infrastructure that underpins modern life. In the United Kingdom, the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has taken the lead on a quiet but pivotal front: standardising the language that will guide the transition to post‑quantum cryptography (PQC). By publishing RFC 9794 in June 2025, the NCSC has supplied a common vocabulary that will shape how Internet protocols such as TLS, SSH and IPSec evolve to resist future quantum attacks.
Drafting the Future of Secure Communication
The NCSC’s work sits at the intersection of academia, industry and international standards bodies. Since 2016, the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has run a multi‑year programme to evaluate and standardise algorithms that can withstand attacks from a quantum computer. In August 2024, NIST announced the first set of PQC standards for key establishment and digital signatures, naming the algorithms ML‑KEM, ML‑DSA and SLH‑DSA. These choices are now being studied by vendors and protocol designers worldwide.
At the same time, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been preparing to embed these new primitives into the protocols that make the web function. The IETF’s “Post‑Quantum Use In Protocols” (PQUIP) working group is the forum where engineers debate how to integrate PQC into TLS, SSH and IPSec without breaking compatibility or performance. The NCSC’s involvement in this group has been crucial: it brings a national‑security perspective and a deep understanding of the practical risks that arise when cryptographic terminology is ambiguous.
The Language of Security: Why Terminology Matters
In cryptography, words carry weight. A single misused term can lead to a protocol that appears secure but is vulnerable in practice. The NCSC identified this danger early, publishing a draft Internet‑Draft in 2022 that defined terminology for “Post‑Quantum/Traditional Hybrid” (PQ/T) schemes. The draft aimed to prevent scenarios where two experts discuss the same concept under different names, or conversely, use the same phrase to describe distinct mechanisms.
After months of discussion with academics and industry specialists, the draft was refined and finally released as RFC 9794. The document starts from first principles, defining cryptographic algorithms, artefacts, protocols and security properties in a clear, unambiguous way. It also acknowledges alternative terms that exist in the literature, mapping them to the standard definitions to avoid confusion. More than 20 other IETF drafts and several academic papers now cite RFC 9794, indicating that the terminology it establishes is quickly becoming the lingua franca for PQC discussions.
A Ripple Through Protocols: What This Means for Everyday Users
While the NCSC’s terminology work may seem abstract, its impact will be felt by anyone who relies on secure internet connections. For example, the TLS protocol, which protects web traffic, is undergoing a major overhaul to accommodate PQC algorithms. If developers use inconsistent terminology during this transition, they risk implementing a protocol that is either too weak or unnecessarily complex. The NCSC’s standard reduces that risk by ensuring that all stakeholders,vendors, protocol designers, security auditors,are speaking the same language.
Moreover, the standardisation effort dovetails with NIST’s algorithm selection. Once an algorithm such as ML‑KEM is approved, vendors can integrate it into their libraries with confidence that the terminology used in the implementation matches the formal definitions. This alignment accelerates the deployment of PQC‑ready products, shortening the window during which sensitive data could be exposed by a quantum adversary.
Beyond the Draft: The Road Ahead
The publication of RFC 9794 marks a significant milestone, but the journey toward a quantum‑resistant internet is far from finished. Protocols must be updated, software must be re‑written, and organisations must plan migration timelines that balance security with operational continuity. The NCSC’s guidance on next steps, published alongside the RFC, offers a roadmap for businesses to prepare for the inevitable shift.
International collaboration will remain essential. As the IETF continues to refine its PQC protocols, and as other standards bodies adopt similar terminology frameworks, the global community will benefit from a coherent, interoperable set of security practices. In the coming years, the combination of robust algorithms, clear language, and coordinated implementation will determine whether the internet can survive the quantum revolution or fall victim to a new class of attackers.
In short, the NCSC’s work on post‑quantum terminology is not merely a bureaucratic exercise; it is a foundational step that will shape the resilience of the internet for decades to come.
