On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 at 21:59, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-pqc-auth-12: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-pqc-auth/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENTs. There is just one > non-blocking > comment that I am going to leave here, and let you decide how you want to > handle it. > > Paul Wouters’ point on the OPSDIR thread that an implementation supporting > only > one of ML-DSA/SLH-DSA can't cleanly claim "RFC XXXX supported," and Wang > Guilin's suggested fix ("supports ML-DSA [RFC XXXX]"), don't appear to have > made it into Section 6 of -12. > The document specifies ML-DSA and SLH-DSA independently; supporting only one is fully conformant. How that support is described by an implementation is outside the scope of the document. -Tiru
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
