[saag] Re: [EXTERNAL] post quantum guidance draft
"Dang, Quynh H. \(Fed\)" <[email protected]> Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:13:57 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.saag |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <MW4PR09MB1005902D0FA396BF563D42BF1F3D9A@MW4PR09MB10059.namprd09.prod.outlook.com> |
Hi Stephen, Opinions only have values when the answers are not known. I think the community knows the pros and cons of hybrid vs pure PQC, so the answers are known (I am not talking about "here is a paper which says the cost is 1 cent, x amount of energy or time only; so this is more important than that etc. which is an opinion). You could write a document which lists the pros and cons, let the users decide. PQUIP would be a better place than SAAG I think. Regards, Quynh. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, December 1, 2025 7:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [EXTERNAL] [saag] post quantum guidance draft > > > 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://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatrack > er.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-farrell-tls- > pqg%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cquynh.dang%40nist.gov%7Cb47c1b11c4c04cdb8 > b9908de30d66e4f%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C0%7C0%7C > 639001894727986388%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiO > nRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ > %3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=wIxTk8BsCuyD1F%2Fz67MjfvtwiOoPVp5B9 > y9XzG1Q0do%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ saag mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]