On 29.04.26 20:06, Daniel Apon wrote:
I think the comparison should be done in the WG chatter.
Was that a typo? Did you mean WG charter? If so, I don't see anything on PQ in our WG charter. So by this argument, you seem to be suggesting even more procedural burden to first apply for WG rechartering before going forward with this document.
The document being discussed for addition (draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-sigs-19) has already been approved by IESG and is in publication queue. If anything, in the IETF sense, that document already has IETF consensus.
A document intended to be long-living shouldn't carry along ephemeral discussion points, which may or may not age like milk.
About "ephemeral," documents can be "Update"-d, or "Errata" can be issued later on, etc.
Best regards, -UsamaPS: In Germany, there is ultra-high temperature processed "milk" which has shelf life of up to 6 months (cf. [0]; sorry I could not find an English page, but you can translate; "Monate" == months), which may be sufficient to Update a document, or at least to get an Errata approved.
[0] https://unsere-bauern.de/erzeugnisse/haltbarkeit-der-milch/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
