On Thu, 17 Apr 2025, Bellebaum, Thomas wrote:
My previous email explained the obvious way the consensus was validly called.
This
can be independently verified by anyone reading the email thread. The
fact that you are the only one questioning the consensus should be an
indication that your reasoning to doubt the consensus call might in fact
be erroneous.
He is not the only one.
This amounts to about every fourth person objecting the draft in its current
state at this time
Note that the consensus call was for Working Group Adoption. Not publishing as
is.
Going forward with the new WG item, here is my current wishlist:
- Much discussion stems from an insufficient understanding of the considerations leading so many to
believe that pure-PQ algorithms are the better choice compared to hybrids, be that harsh requirements
("users that need to be fully post-quantum" -> Why? Regulations?) or implementation
considerations (e.g. "minimalist code base"). Please collect and document them (preferably
inside the document) so that we can reason about concrete requirements and applications rather than
hearsay and hypotheticals.
- Give some guidance to implementations as to whether or not this should be
implemented and/or available at runtime. Is this just for those with special
considerations mentioned above? If so, consider recommended=D or Experimental
to convey this. Or is this for general purpose use by all sorts of
applications? If so, document how the considerations above apply to them and
discuss the relation to hybrid constructions.
This sounds like you are not objecting to adoption, but objecting only
to publication as is? No consensus call for moving this document forward
as is (eg WGLC) has been requested for this document yet. It is expected
to be discussed in the WG, and I encourage everyone to propose text to
improve the document.
Paul
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
