Michael Richardson writes: > In general, I think that it is overly detailed invokes too much IESG busy > work, and much of the "current work items" could just be milestones (which > still requires AD approval). If we went beyond what paragraph two says, > "... continues the work..." then the AD would pull an exception and we'd then > go to the IESG. (I'll also repeat my rant prefering quantum-safe to > post-quantum)
The current charter was approved in January 2020, that is about 5 years ago. Before that the charter said it needs to be rechartered every year. I think IESG can click yes, every 5 years, thats why their pay has so many zeros (nothing else than those unfortunately :-). > Perhaps missing in the quantum-safe work is considerations of how we do > certificates. Do the bigger cert chains fit inline, does RFC9370 > (IKE_INTERMEDIATE) help, or ?? IKE messages are limited to 4GB, but max payload size is 64k. We did have few proposals before how to solve that, but it seems most of the quantum-safe algorithms has payloads less than 64k (I think almost all except classic McElice). -- kivi...@iki.fi _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- ipsec@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ipsec-le...@ietf.org
