[saag] Re: [Ext] Re: draft-paulwh-crypto-components-02

On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 5:48 AM Simon Josefsson <simon=
[email protected]> wrote:

> Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> writes:
>
> The way I read the paragraph below is that you intend a normative
> requirement but you re-worded it to actually not say so overtly.  I also
> think the broad generic argument below that "too many algorithms is
> harmful" plays too strongly in the hands of those who want to make
> non-NIST crypto hard to deploy.
>

The recent past (eg non-pq) shows a narrowing of algorithms to mostly be 1
NIST and 1 non-NIST algorithm.
I don't see this document changing that. Of course, the non-NIST set of
algorithms doesn't have the oversight
from a NIST-like body, so we will likely have more arguments on which
non-NIST algorithm is preferred. This
draft basically just re-states we dont want a zillion non-NIST algorithms.

Paul
ps. this reasoning is also why it makes sense that WGs introduce PQ
algorithms as MAY and not SHOULD.

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