On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 1:59 PM Roy Arends <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 14 Aug 2026, at 18:35, Philip Homburg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I therefore dont think we should introduce a generic preference > for PQC algorithms in this draft. We have a process in RFC9904 for > introducing new and deprecating old algorithms. > > > It was not my intention to express a preference for PQC or whether we > should use pure or hybrid, or whether validators should prefer PQC. That > is all a discussion for later. And, as in Joe's draft, a local preference. > > What I wanted to bring up is that the multi-alg draft may interfere with > with the ability to have a preference at all. So I think we should study > that > and figure out a way forward. > > > Ack, thanks for the clarification, Philip! > > Roy >
Assuming the draft gets adopted, the working group can then decide how to tackle this additional issue (e.g. roll in a solution into the draft, or make sure it doesn't block a solution introduced in a new draft, etc.). I do agree with Roy's earlier point that in general we don't know at this stage whether a PQC algorithm is necessarily more secure than a classical one. The conservative stance would be to require both classical and PQC signatures to validate, or use a hybrid signature scheme. Those have message size cost implications of course. Shumon.
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
