[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> Mon, 1 Dec 2025 14:36:47 +0000
Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.saag
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 01/12/2025 14:28, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 6:15 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 01/12/2025 14:07, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It's entirely fair to have that opinion but can you say why?
>>
> 
> I already did so on SECDISPATCH:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secdispatch/2ae8yAjMc98__3jTkhKWi-JHvEg/

Thanks, I'd forgotten that.

> These comments are about -03, but as I said, they continue to apply.

Fair enough. We disagree so, which is fine. I think we're
doing a disservice to the Internet by defining our zoo of
codepoints and not providing any usable guidance to people
using s/w that supports (some of) those.

 > It's possible that a draft which actually tried to give people
 > the tools to make their own judgements about what is good and what
 > is bad would be useful. This is not that draft.

I agree that'd be a different draft. I'd worry it'd be too
long and cumbersome to be useful but would be an interested
reader if someone wanted to write it. (But I also think the
super terse guidance in my draft is better for now of course:-)

Cheers,
S.



> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
>> Ta,
>> S.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -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]
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 236 B)