[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> Mon, 1 Dec 2025 20:58:58 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.ietf.saag
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 01/12/2025 20:50, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Which is different from what Nico wrote.

Yep.

> Thanks for clarifying.
> (And for promising not to appeal :). 

You're welcome:-)

> I guess if it gets adopted
> somewhere, the two factions will have to come to consensus.

I don't think there are two factions.

My characterisation would be that we have various sets of IETF
participants working on PQ things, with almost every possible
PQ thing having some proponents, and therefore getting defined
via IANA codepoints and some protocol changes where needed.
I don't think that's all wise, but it's happening and I don't
see it being feasible to stop. (And indeed I don't think the
IESG ought try stop it, given there seems to be consensus to do
it.)

We could nonetheless provide guidance as to what's good to use,
or better left for another day. That doesn't stop the first thing
from happening at all. (And yes, the IESG could maybe 'steer' us
into providing guidance, as their name implies:-)

Cheers,
S.

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

OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 236 B)