[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> Wed, 10 Dec 2025 23:59:59 +0000

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

Hiya,

For those still following along with this discussion...

For a project [1] we're part of, (where I'm the resident PQ
skeptic:-), I had to do a bit of a survey of ongoing IETF PQ
work and produced [2] which has just been put up on the web
page for the project following some local bureaucracy.

I'm not claiming [2] is a winning argument for [3] but making
it totally re-enforced my opinion that guidance along the lines
suggested in [3] is needed, for two high-level reasons: there's
an avalanche of PQ things happening (section 2 of [2]) and the
related points of disagreement (section 3 of [2]) are such that
we're just not going to reach consensus on the details of the
sensible subset of things to recommend, for now at least.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I don't think we need to debate the content of [2] here,
but I'd be happy to get corrections/comments off-list.

[1] https://pqcsa.eu/
[2] https://pqcsa.eu/deliverables/pq-protocols.pdf
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-tls-pqg/

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

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