On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 12:54 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar < [email protected]> wrote: > This is the last version for the TLS WG as a formal check to see if > there are any objections to taking it to the Independent Submissions > Editor (ISE) path, or if anything else is required from the WG for ISE > path.
The entire concept of the ISE is that it's independent. Therefore, having a "formal check" that the TLS WG doesn't have objections isn't really a thing. Rather, the way the process works under RFC 5742 and RFC 4846 is when the ISE nears publication they ask the IESG to perform a conflict review. I am not on the IESG, but it does not appear to me that this document fits into any of the existing conflict categories; in any case the ISE is free to ignore the IESG's opinion. With that said, I do no believe that it would be good for the ISE to publish this document. It's possible that some neutral document about the general space of hybrids versus pure PQ would be useful (or not) but that's not what this document is, and I don't believe the Internet community is well served by the ISE publishing something of this form that is so tied to a specific controversy. Those who care about that can read the list. However, that's just my opinion and the ISE is under no obligation to take it into account. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
