Happy Easter Monday, I was just reading my emails at wake up peacefully reading the discussion that I take ‘en route’ and I see ITU-T SG17 mentioned below.
Did I miss something? In general I am happy we help when appropriate but here, SG17 should have nothing to do in this email thread. Like nothing. Our mandate is extremely strict on PQC and only on use, migration and a very specific PQC/QKD. If there would be anything to do in our scope, we will take it from your decisions. We are strictly not allowed to work on design, assessment, etc. and for good reasons. I hope this clarifies. Best Regards > On 6 Apr 2026, at 04:51, Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 03, 2026 at 12:16:09PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: >> [0] I agree with you that the level of contention here is out of proportion >> to the stakes of how much it matters whether the RFC is published. > > Yes. The work item was adopted in spite of some objections. Those > objections were raised again at WGLC, with more objectors than earlier. > I don't think any _new_ objections were raised. > > Under those circumstances, and considering that some SDO will publish > this if not us, it would be much better to now publish ourselves, as > then we get to give guidance that we might not otherwise, and I would > rather we give that guidance. > >> [1] Note that we do this ourselves sometimes for other reasons. > > Yes. On several occasions. E.g., we've published GSER instead of > taking that to the ITU-T SG 17. E.g., we've competed -but also worked > closely- with ECMA on JSON. > > Nico > -- > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
