In reply to
Daniel J. Bernstein
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to
Designing cryptography (deployed now: X25519, Ed25519, ChaCha20, sntrup, Classic McEliece) to proactively reduce risks. Coined phrase "post-quantum" in 2003.
mastodon.cr.yp.to
Daniel J. Bernstein
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to
Designing cryptography (deployed now: X25519, Ed25519, ChaCha20, sntrup, Classic McEliece) to proactively reduce risks. Coined phrase "post-quantum" in 2003.
mastodon.cr.yp.to
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to
·
3d ago
@huitema @pedromj @paulehoffman @rsalz The burden is the other way from what you're describing. The WG can't issue non-consensual RFCs. Conflicts must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion; if they aren't resolved then issuing an RFC would violate IETF rules for how WGs operate. It's not merely that the authors have to add a warning if there's consensus on a warning. There's no default entitlement for documents to sail through.
View full thread on mastodon.cr.yp.to
0
0
0
Loading comments...