[openpgp] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ope npgp-pqc-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Daniel,

The change will allow me to clear my DISCUSS indeed.

While I agree with you that the *currently known* implementers know what is going on, let's not forget the other readers. Hence, my point.

Regards

-éric


From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 24 December 2025 at 06:52
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>, Aron Wussler <[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-openpgp-pqc-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On Fri 2025-12-19 12:34:30 +0000, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:

> I had a look at the added text in section 2.1, it adds some hints
> about the "SHOULD" in the table 2, but no clear definition of the
> MUST/MAY/SHOULD in the table 1, especially when the IANA registry for
> public key algorithms does not have such a column.
>
> As a way forward, I strongly recommend using a similar approach used
> in section 9.1 of RFC 9580, i.e., moving the MUST/MAY/SHOULD out of
> the table in the text and keeping the added text & linking it to the
> SHOULD.

I think all of the current implementers of this specificaion already
understand what this column means, but I agree with you that we could
also move the requirements out of the table, and to the text.  Perhaps
that would make it clearer for anyone who follows later.

I've proposed this change:

https://github.com/openpgp-pqc/draft-openpgp-pqc/pull/262

Does this do what you're looking for?

Thanks for your review!

     --dkg

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