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

Aron Wussler <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:31:44 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.openpgp
Message-ID	<GhwgDA9-Rs6vNxytBJ04qwWcnqa3nDA_0Xkqda0QJaCwvlnN7kUn7hEABIDDx5l9wnmEhiohunN1OUIDlVR7lPn9LdfD57p0b4BXAdI_fyM=@wussler.it>

Hey Éric,

I also like the column in the table, as it gives a clear overview of the implementation requirements, and would prefer not to remove it.

Cheers,
Aron

--
Aron Wussler
Sent with ProtonMail, OpenPGP key 0x7E6761563EFE3930



On Wednesday, 24 December 2025 at 08:42, Stavros Kousidis <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
> 

> thank you for your review.
> 

> Would it be possible to keep the "Requirement" columns and augment the tables with dkg's additional explanation?
> 

> I find the tables (including that column) to display the requirement gradation in a compact way and to allow a quick lookup once you understood the meaning.
> 

> If not, I'm fine with dkg's proposal.
> 

> @dkg: Thank you for taking care of this.
> 

> Best
> Stavros
> 

> On 12/24/25 07:16, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> 

> > 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]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 343 B)