[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 8:02 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 01/12/2025 15:38, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I think that discussion would be a lot more productive if it
> > didn't happen in the context of this draft and the implicit
> > request for it to be worked on in the IETF.
>
> Huh? Isn't writing a draft how we do things around here?
>
I'm quite puzzled by your comment TBH.
>

I'm not sure what's puzzling, as this seems like a fairly common
situation in IETF.

Based on the comments on the secdispatch list and in the DISPATCH
meeting, I think it's clear that there are a significant number of
people who think that this draft does not go in a helpful direction
(including me, obviously). Continuing to frame the discussion by
revising the draft but not making significant directional changes and
then inviting comment (with the implicit question being whether the
IETF should work on something substantively like this draft) just
results in repeating the discussion we've already had.

To the extent to which you just want to address the problem of lack of
guidance about PQ algorithms, I would suggest that a better way to do
that would be to try to get to some consensus about whether there
is in fact a problem that needs to be solved and what that problem is,
separate from the merits of this particular draft.

-Ekr

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