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

[Ballot comment]
Erk! I just realized that I promised Roman that I'd ballot after I understood the "shape" of this WG (is it something like MOPS / IOTOPS?) -- and then I forgot to do so...

[Ballot comment]
This seems fine.

As a point of information, I was recently reminded that SIGs are a thing that exists. This group seems to (mostly? completely?) match the description in https://wiki.ietf.org/group/iesg/specialinterestgroups

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for addressing my previous comments.

I now wonder whether this WG should also act as a review team (aka directorate) for other WG documents.

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot block]
Like Lars and Murray and Eric and Alvaro and Zaheduzzaman I'm somewhat confused by the relationship between this and CFRG.

Is this intended to be something like a MOPS and IOTOPS type WG?

Note that I'm happy to clear either way, I'd just like to understand...

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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?

[Ballot block]
Why is the CFRG not fulfilling the role this WG is being chartered for?
There seems to be a lot of overlap between PQUIP and CFRG, which could
also publish the Informational documents this group intends to publish.

[Ballot comment]
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

[Ballot comment]
# 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?