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

Stavros and Aron,

Thanks for your patience while I was away from the keyboard during this end-of-year time-off.

I do not mind keeping the SHOULD/MUST column as long as the actual text says what is meant by MUST and SHOULD. In this context, Daniel's PR is perfect for me.

I.e., adding text similar to Daniel's PR will allow me to clear my DISCUSS.

Regards

-éric

From: Stavros Kousidis <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 24 December 2025 at 08:41
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[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)


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]><mailto:[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 24 December 2025 at 06:52
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, Aron Wussler <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: The IESG <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]><mailto:[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]