On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote: > * Who is that addressed to, Usama or Viktor? I can't tell; maybe that's > * just an artifact of Outlook being a crappy MUA. > > Or I just don’t know how to use it. It was intended for Usama while also > bolstering Viktor’s point.
There's a way to enable angle-bracket quoting in Outlook, but IIRC you still get top-posting by default, and you also have to set it to do plain-text response, and then you have to trim stuff and at your own `On <datetime>, So And So wrote:` line if you want it. > * I don't think anyone in this sub-sub-thread > * is arguing that there is no case where non-hybrid performance wins by > * enough to justify it. > > I don’t think I’ve seen claims, either. But some of those who are > hybrid-only are saying the costs are so small that they are (a) asking > for proof where this is not the case; and (b) threatening to appeal if > a non-hybrid draft is approved for publication.[1] > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/q4nNjdrGrJv-4s1JYVHz41WJ2Go/ Ah, thanks, I'd not read that one yet. We've reached the point where it's clear that non-publication will not achieve what opponents of publication want, therefore non-publication is now pointless. The IETF or the IEEE will both provide sufficient "patina" of respectability for non-hybrids, but the IETF is much more likely than the IEEE to add Security Considerations text warning that hybrids are the conservative approach for now. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
