On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 05:04:53PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 4:22 PM Stephen Farrell <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 07/04/2026 21:35, Paul Wouters wrote: > > > The contention is whether it should be published now or later, when > > > classic protections gain us little to no benefit. > > > > From my POV, that mischaracterises the contention. I think > > the contentious issue is whether or not to publish this with > > or without caveats as to when to use it, and how to encode > > any such caveats in RFC/BCP text. > > There are two things here: > > 1) The IEEE group wants an RFC. They can advocate for this just as anyone > else can. (yes!) > > 2) The IETF must do an RFC because the IEEE has made a requirement (no!) > > That cedes sovereignty, and we shouldn't do that.
If the IEEE publishes their own w/o the guidance we would have written in ours, then we've "ceded sovereignty" anyways in that we would have lost an opportunity to give guidance. Either way non-hybrid PQ happens, so what will have anyone "won"? Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
