[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 08:45:09AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 8:32 AM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I think the right advice is going to depend quite a bit on the specific
> use case, especially for signatures. It's possible that something
> sufficiently nuanced could be produced, but I think it would take
> the form of considerations that could then be applied in individual
> contexts, rather than the kind of broad brush advice in this
> draft.

Thanks.  But it's key agreement where we need this, not signatures.

It's key agreement where _passive_ attacks can be devastating, while
with signatures we're talking about active attacks.  Active attacks are
always much more challenging to mount.

For signatures I'd expect LAMPS WG to produce a document regarding PKIX
certificate signatures -- I'd expect that a generic advice document
couldn't preempt LAMPS in any way here.

Nico
-- 

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