[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 06:44:51AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 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").

We can have cross-area advice.  That is effectively what CFRG does.  Can
you say more about why we shouldn't do that in this specific case?

> 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.

Sure, that's a complaint specific to this Stephen's I-D, but obviously
it could be edited to make this complaint go away, which would bring us
back to the main question of why not cross-protocol/area advice.

Nico
-- 

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