Nico Williams writes:
> there were no objections with technical reasons that were fatal to the
> work in question
I disagree. For example, the draft's regression from ECC+PQ to just PQ
is certainly a technology issue; and this is fatal, as a contravention
of the "improve security" goal in the WG charter.
The draft might be able to escape this if it were serving other goals in
the charter, but it's not as if the draft lays out a case for that. The
draft says non-hybrids are important for users who demand non-hybrids;
this is a circular argument. To the extent that this is an allusion to
NSA purchasing, it violates BCP 188 ("IETF Will Work to Mitigate
Pervasive Monitoring").
Procedurally, issuing generic conclusions that objections aren't fatal
is not a substitute for trying to resolve the content of the objections.
> The policy question, if called, could in principle lead to the IETF
> asking the ISE not to publish this work.
Here I agree, and I think this would be a good way forward.
---D. J. Bernstein
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
