[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

I see value in this draft in that it will clearly indicate preferences e.g.
for hybrids, which is hard to see from the registry of code points or
mailing list discussions. If this document progresses beyond an individual
draft, there are benefits to being able to reference such a document at
IETF and beyond.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 4:38 AM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Hiya,
>
> We chatted a bit about [1] at the secdispatch session
> in Montreal and the sort-of outcome was that further
> discussion should be on this list. I've updated [1] a
> little bit in the meantime.
>
> I heard various reactions to [1] at secdispatch and
> in subsequent chats with a few people, those included:
>
> 1. we need something like this (maybe this text or some
>     other, but some general guidance is needed)
> 2. we don't need this, specific WGs should provide whatever
>     guidance is needed, if any
> 3. we shouldn't bother with this at all, it's just a waste
>     of time and will go nowhere
>
> There are likely other positions on this too of course.
>
> Given that we've probably hit 100 new PQ codepoints over
> the various IANA registries (anyone counted 'em all?), I'm
> clearly in favour of #1 above. #2 seems likely to make
> for more confusion and be quite slow, and while #3
> might turn out to be the case, I think we owe it to
> people using our stuff to give it a shot.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> PS: For those who don't read the draft:-) It doesn't say
> anything about what WGs should do, it's only about what
> people deploying stuff ought do in the near term.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-tls-pqg/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]