[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft









On 12/12/2025 13:36, Salz, Rich wrote:
> We have that: each WG with its own subject-matter experts, is coming
> up with how to use PQ for its domain. You seem to think that’s a
> problem and want to write “one guidance to rule them all” and I
> don’t think that’s a good idea.



> On 12/12/25, 8:43 AM, "Stephen Farrell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't want to do that. The draft specifically says it is not
> trying to control what WGs do. It is aimed at providing simple
> high-level near-term guidance for those deploying. You may still
> consider that a bad idea, but it's not a "rule them all" thing
> at all.


I guess I was too cute, trying for a Lord of the Rings reference. I didn’t mean “rule” in any real sense of constraining what IETF WG’s do. Each of the many WGs you summarize wants to do PQ stuff and thinks they should. An IETF document that says “this part is fine, but maybe don’t do that part right now” is going to contradict all those efforts.


As for near-term guidance, how do we know when the time has come?

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