I support adopting both documents. I did wonder if it's useful to publish as separate RFCs or combined -- publishing as two separate RFCs makes citations clearer, but of course there is a bunch of overlap of the documents.
-d > On Jul 2, 2025, at 10:26 AM, Peter Yee <pe...@akayla.com> wrote: > > The calls for adoption on these two drafts will end in one week. If we don't > hear sufficient interest from working group participants, the documents > simply will not be adopted. Now's the time to make your voices heard. Please > send signs of support to the mailing list if you feel these drafts are worth > the WG's time. > > Thank you. > > -Peter and Joe > > On 6/25/25, 4:29 AM, "Peter Yee" <pe...@akayla.com > <mailto:pe...@akayla.com>> wrote: > > These two drafts have been presented at past IETF meetings. They cover PQC > variants for the existing EAP-AKA' FS mechanism (RFC 9678). One is pure PQC, > the other is a classical/PQC hybrid. > > The call for adoption will end on July 9th. Please do send your thoughts to > the mailing list on whether one, both, or none of these drafts should be > adopted. If adopted, we hope to have these on the agenda for discussion > during the Madrid meeting next month. > > -Peter and Joe > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ar-emu-hybrid-pqc-eapaka/ > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ra-emu-pqc-eapaka/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list -- emu@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to emu-le...@ietf.org _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list -- emu@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to emu-le...@ietf.org
