Post #1249783
2026-04-15 15:26 UTC
@djb @huitema @pedromj @paulehoffman @rsalz funny you used the exact opposite argument for ssh sntrup761x25519-sha512, arguing a code point wasn’t enough - despite even already being almost universally available in a vendor namespace. You just wanted the “endorsement” of an RFC.
Cherry pickers will cherry pick 🍒
Replies (1)
-
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to 2026-04-16 17:30
@letoams @huitema @pedromj @paulehoffman @rsalz The basic dividing line is very simple: I endorse various _good_ things. I oppose endorsement of various _bad_ things. I'm not the one here issuing a confusing mixture of (1) acknowledging "strong consensus that pure PQ should not be recommended at this time", (2) claiming that it's good to issue RFCs on "pure" (non-hybrid) PQ, and (3) claiming that such RFCs wouldn't be endorsement despite prominently claiming "consensus of the IETF community".