[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

This revision does not affect my opinion on the value of this work,
which is not based on the introduction and background.

I do not believe the IETF should take it up.

-Ekr


On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 4:38 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> We chatted a bit about [1] at the secdispatch session
> in Montreal and the sort-of outcome was that further
> discussion should be on this list. I've updated [1] a
> little bit in the meantime.
>
> I heard various reactions to [1] at secdispatch and
> in subsequent chats with a few people, those included:
>
> 1. we need something like this (maybe this text or some
>     other, but some general guidance is needed)
> 2. we don't need this, specific WGs should provide whatever
>     guidance is needed, if any
> 3. we shouldn't bother with this at all, it's just a waste
>     of time and will go nowhere
>
> There are likely other positions on this too of course.
>
> Given that we've probably hit 100 new PQ codepoints over
> the various IANA registries (anyone counted 'em all?), I'm
> clearly in favour of #1 above. #2 seems likely to make
> for more confusion and be quite slow, and while #3
> might turn out to be the case, I think we owe it to
> people using our stuff to give it a shot.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> PS: For those who don't read the draft:-) It doesn't say
> anything about what WGs should do, it's only about what
> people deploying stuff ought do in the near term.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-tls-pqg/
>
> _______________________________________________
> saag mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>

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