[Plants] Re: Scope and charter

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Felix Linker <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > I wonder, though, whether the initial charter is too constrained. The first
    > sentence says: "The goal of the PLANTS Working Group is to trim the costs
    > of large post-quantum signatures on PKIs with Certificate Transparency
    > [...]." Why the focus on PQ-signatures? Would this forbid any improvements
    > to the ecosystem that do not relate to PQ-signatures? It seems better to me
    > if the charter just said: "The goal of the PLANTS Working Group is to trim
    > the costs of PKIs with Certificate Transparency [...]."

    > I also find it odd to already constrain the WG by which mechanism it will
    > use to trim those costs (be they due to PQ-signatures or not). Looking at
    > the entire certificate issuance and CT system more broadly seems like the
    > better approach to me.

I suggested:
https://github.com/davidben/merkle-tree-certs/pull/123
   The goal of the PLANTS Working Group is to rethink the tradeoffs between
   certificate signatures and Transparency Logs.  This is driven the size and
   performance of quantum-safe algorithms.  The initial focus of the WG is on
   PKIs that use Certificate Transparency (CT; RFC 6962 and RFC 9162), with
   interactive protocols like TLS (RFC 8446) and IKEv2 (RFC7296)

Bas complained that maybe I'm missing some words after tradeoffs.
But, I think this is the higher-level thinking that you are interested in.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide