Hi Nico, You've made fair points, thank you for articulating it. To be clear: I don't feel aggrieved by you. And I genuinely appreciate your time responding and clarifying your take.
--Daniel On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 5:57 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
