On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:32:27AM +0000, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) wrote:
> Actually, some people are taking QKD seriously, and so just ignoring
> the LS may be unwise.
>
> I'm not sure what such an LS response ought to be, though. Telling
> them to make sure they use RFC 8773 would be one obvious step (so that
> the QKD can't make things worse), but their LS makes it sound like
> they want cooperation, not just advice. And, I suspect that this
> working group, as a whole, isn't interested.
>
> Of course, they can (or anyone else) could make an individual
> submission to the TLS working group. I'm not sure if pointing that
> out would be helpful.
Perhaps naïvely, I see no reason to second-guess the intent of the
request. Andrei suggests: to respond, in simple technical terms. Not
with judgement, not with assumption of ill intent by any parties. Just
plain technical advice. That may a way to say what I tried to say much
more clearly. What might be the downside of a short technically sound
response?
--
Viktor. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні!
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
