Hi Nico, The past two posts seem to cast others' actions or opinions under a certain context/framing that they would likely object to. E.g. speculating "Perhas[sic] they think" and "that want to XYZ may do so under coercion"
I don't think it's helpful to the discussion to pigeonhole others' opinions (especially opinions of a large variety of people representing many different working groups and many different interests) in such an undermining manner. For example, my basic opinion is that (i) hybrid should be standardized (it is!) and (ii) pure-mlkem should be standardized as well (the topic of discussion), and nodes on the Internet should be free to negotiate which protocol they use under their own policies (refusing these connections, accepting those, etc.). However, I would take exception to my perspective being characterized by either of the two motivations you expressed. Kind regards, --Daniel On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 5:32 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 07:54:44PM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL > wrote: > > For how much longer will the opponents of non-hybrid (because the > > other side has nothing against hybrids — they simply want the freedom > > to exercise other options, based on their educated conclusion) beat > > this dead horse? > > 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. > > 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]
