[Secdispatch] Re: proposal to try for a PQ guidance BCP

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya

On 18/10/2025 20:10, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think you have the burden of proof backwards here.

I don't understand how that legalistic concept applies tbh. But
whatever.
> Right now, we're letting WGs decide for themselves what to do, and
> you're advocating for some IETF-wide guidance. 

There is no inherent conflict between those two. I'm fine that WGs
do what they want, as they will anyway. I'm arguing for a BCP about
deployment not protocol development. I'd hope WGs would continue to
try do better and maybe eventually find some usable PQ-sig schemes.

In the meantime, I think we'd be helping the Internet if we tell
almost everyone to ignore PQ-sigs for now, when it comes to deployment.
And I think that is generally good guidance and not specific to
connection-oriented  situations.

Cheers,
S.