[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 6:36 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

Yes, I think we should provide guidance, but this draft is the
wrong way to do it. Rather, we should provide guidance in
the protocols themselves, which is not inconsistent with registering
a lot of code points (hence tools like "recommended=Y/N").

Moreover, this proposal doesn't even really do that good a job
of narrowing the set of algorithms for key establishment, because
it just says "use hybrids" but of course there can be a large number
of hybrids, because there are a fair number of PQ KEM algorithms
and the product of those algorithms with EC groups is even larger.

-Ekr

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