On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 at 14:02, Bellebaum, Thomas <thomas.belleb...@aisec.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > I am sorry for interrupting your argument, but as you are discussing this > on-list: > > > 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. Using the independently verifiable mail thread, I > actually did count by a rough look over the messages (sorry if I > missed/misinterpreted someone): > > Pro Adoption: > - Alicja Kario > - Andrei Popov > - David Adrian > - Filippo Valsorda > - Flo D > - Jan Schaumann > - John Mattson > - Joseph Birr-Pixton > - Kris Kwiatkowski > - Loganaden Velvindron I don't see it as a Pro/Against Adoption issue. It's more subtle than this. I'm definitely a Pro Hybrid but I understand that vendors need pure PQ to sell to a very large government.
However, the approach of pure PQ carries risks. The risks are amplified if this is deployed into consumer products where billions of users are not aware of the current issues discussed in this thread. The whole debate has put me in a somewhat difficult position. There is a lot of context that needs to be taken into consideration. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
