[saag] Re: post quantum guidance draft

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 01/12/2025 16:45, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think the right advice is going to depend quite a bit on the specific
> use case, especially for signatures. It's possible that something
> sufficiently nuanced could be produced, but I think it would take
> the form of considerations that could then be applied in individual
> contexts, rather than the kind of broad brush advice in this
> draft.

The reason the current section 3.2 is as it is, is because
I think we won't know what guidance to offer for signatures
for a year or two more, or maybe even longer. Were we to emit
a BCP now(ish) along the lines suggested, I'd fully expect it
to need to be replaced once we do figure out some real guidance
wrt signatures. (Not sure if that's entirely clear in the
draft, hence the clarification here.)

Cheers,
S.