Post-Quantum Use In Protocols
charter-ietf-pquip-01

Yes

Paul Wouters
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
(Robert Wilton)

No Objection

Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
Murray Kucherawy
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke
(Alvaro Retana)
(Lars Eggert)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Paul Wouters
Yes
Roman Danyliw
Yes
Warren Kumari
(was Block) Yes
Comment (2023-01-05 for -00-02) Not sent 
Roman said that this is intended to be a similar type thingie to MOPS, which answered my DISUCSS / BLOCK. 

Thank you, clearing...
Erik Kline
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-17 for -00-00) Sent 
# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-pquip-00-00
CC @ekline

## Comments

* "associated operational guidance to PQC"

  This read a bit funny to me.

  "associated operational guidance with respect to PQC", or something?
Francesca Palombini
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-28 for -00-00) Sent 
I support Lars' BLOCK.

Also, since the likelihood of document output from the proposed working group seems low, I wonder if it might be better for this to be a non-WG venue whose output needing publication, if any, could result in something being AD-sponsored.

Has this been debated in SECDISPATCH?
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
No Objection
Comment (2023-01-03 for -00-00) Sent 
The charter gives an impression that it is a (sec)dispatch kind of working group with the ability to publish informational RFCs (kind of a publication can be done via IRTF). Hence, I am supporting Lars's discuss and hope that the charter would clarify why this WG is needed in IETF (i.e. focus on protocol aspects rather than crypto aspects, currently it says it will not do any protocol work) and describe the relationship with CFRG and other IETF potential IETF WGs.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment (2022-12-19 for -00-00) Sent 
Interesting idea to create such a WG. 

Two comments:
- should there be a mention of CFRG ?
- should this WG be chartered to obsolete/deprecate RFC that could have become too 'weak' to CRQP ?

-éric
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2023-01-05 for -00-00) Sent 
Mainly balloting yes based on the additional comments that Roman shared with the IESG.  Also, given that this is a time limited WG, if it isn't useful then it will just not get renewed.

As others have pointed out, clarifying the relationship between this WG and CRFG would probably be helpful.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2023-01-04 for -00-00) Not sent 
As others have said, the relationship to CFRG should be clear.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Block) No Objection
No Objection (for -00-02) Sent for earlier