Post #1139747
2026-04-13 20:17 UTC
@huitema@social.secret-wg.org @paulehoffman@infosec.exchange @rsalz@ioc.exchange I've been tracking the arguments and counterarguments (see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20260221-structure.html for a chart) and I don't see where you're getting this "promoting" idea from. Both sides of the debate want to roll out PQ to try to stop quantum attacks. The difference is that one side says you're allowed to replace ECC with _just_ PQ, whereas the other side is requiring ECC+PQ (at negligible extra cost) to reduce the damage caused by more failures of PQ security.
Replies (1)
-
@huitema@social.secret-wg.org 2026-04-13 21:35
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to @paulehoffman@infosec.exchange @rsalz@ioc.exchange By promoting, I meant "publication as an RFC would help the marketing (or promotion) of the PQ-only approach by actors linked to the US government." As in, "of course you can do that, the IETF published it as an RFC, do not look at the fine print."