[DNSOP] Re: Call for adoption: draft-huque-dnsop-multi-alg -rules-08 (Ends 2026-08-31)

On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 1:59 PM Roy Arends <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On 14 Aug 2026, at 18:35, Philip Homburg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I therefore dont think we should introduce a generic preference
> for PQC algorithms in this draft. We have a process in RFC9904 for
> introducing new and deprecating old algorithms.
>
>
> It was not my intention to express a preference for PQC or whether we
> should use pure or hybrid, or whether validators should prefer PQC. That
> is all a discussion for later. And, as in Joe's draft, a local preference.
>
> What I wanted to bring up is that the multi-alg draft may interfere with
> with the ability to have a preference at all. So I think we should study
> that
> and figure out a way forward.
>
>
> Ack, thanks for the clarification, Philip!
>
> Roy
>

Assuming the draft gets adopted, the working group can then decide how to
tackle this
additional issue (e.g. roll in a solution into the draft, or make sure it
doesn't block
a solution introduced in a new draft, etc.).

I do agree with Roy's earlier point that in general we don't know at this
stage whether a
PQC algorithm is necessarily more secure than a classical one. The
conservative stance
would be to require both classical and PQC signatures to validate, or use a
hybrid signature
scheme. Those have message size cost implications of course.

Shumon.

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]