@rsalz
To your .... you are not IETF member side comment.
I am implementing things that IETF is publishing. If my bigger cohort stops looking at what IETF does, then IETF becomes irrelevant.
Hence, from this point, I insist that you must listen to us.

Seriously, IETF should be helping broader society. I am that society.

And again, we all know that your side comment isn't cocher, and only diverts attention from core issue: reduction of locks on my doors.

@djb @letoams

@mikalai @djb @letoams nobody is stopping you from implementing hybrid key exchange. In fact pure post quantum key exchange is not recommended. So what, exactly, is the problem here?

@rsalz
Very true. But my bank will implement whatever you say. Blindly so.
Bank's contractor, to be precise.

Hence, we ask you not to remove working crypto under efficiency argument.

May be consider adding, "banks should not follow this" clear statement.

@djb @letoams

@mikalai @djb @letoams again, nothing is being removed. Nothing. In fact what is being added is explicitly not recommended.

@rsalz
@letoams
This week I had a conversation about needing to implement pq, cause government something-something.
People at large, ok, leaders at large don't know about not-recommended yet RFC, that it is a thing.
You overestimate outside having nuances about your process, and underestimate outsider's trust in you.

Yes, you can functionaly hide behind RECOMMENDED=N.
But, please discourage publishing of stuff IETF doesn't recommend. Stakes are too high here.

@pluralistic @eff

@mikalai @letoams @pluralistic @eff i suggest you learn more about how the IETF operates.