[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

> 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.

Exactly.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025, 11:50 AM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 8:32 AM Nico Williams <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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?
>>
>
> 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.
>
>
> -Ekr
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]