On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 05:45:18PM -0400, Daniel Apon wrote: > Sure-- > > My basic opinion aside: my comment here is that speculating that large > swaths of people are under coercion (in any topic of discussion) is a very > powerful claim.
I said NOTHING of the sort. I wrote: | The issue, I think, is that some of "the other side" that want to | "exercise other options" may do so under coercion, but then, us not | publishing the RFC does not alter that they will continue to so be. which says that "I think" (expressing less than certainty) that some who are opposed to publication think that many will be made to use non-hybrids because that's what things like CNSA 2.0 dictate, and summarizing all of that as "may do so under coercion" seems quite reasonable to me. I was not saying that people who will use non-hybrid PQ _will_ do so under coercion. Besides, I think that's a pretty accurate characterization of arguments that have in fact been put forward here. If I may be so bold, let me suggest that we should not be so itchy to see personal attacks where there may not be any that we end up wasting even more of the list's participants' cycles. If you feel aggrieved, first at least re-read the comment you're offended by to make sure it says what you first thought it said. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
