Re: [Pqc] [EXTERNAL] Re: Listing pointers to not-yet-standardized PQC algorithms

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Mike Ounsworth writes:
> PQUIP is expressly NOT composed of cryptographers (that's CFRG's
> domain) and as such it is not chartered to make cryptographic
> assessments or recommendations. What IT IS chartered for is
> protocol-level discussions about how to integrate PQC into existing
> protocols. Prior to PQUIP, there wasn't really a central place in IETF
> in which to seek inter-WG alignment on PQC integration.

Yes, this is in line with my understanding of PQUIP's purpose. I quoted
the relevant parts of the charter in my first message, and suggested
action items accordingly. I also pointed out some inaccuracies in the
previous messages in the thread, and asked some clarification questions.

Unfortunately, progress in the discussion seems to have been disrupted
by a claim that making "any choices of PQ algorithms" is out of scope
for PQUIP. To me this sounds

   * unsupported by the PQUIP charter,

   * potentially in serious conflict with PQUIP's explicit goal to
     facilitate IETF PQ evolution, and

   * much more an objection to what previous messages in the thread said
     (e.g., "focus on the NIST algorithms") than to what I said,

but maybe I'm misunderstanding the intended meaning of the claim. So I
asked for clarification.

---D. J. Bernstein