Having problems getting into the video, datatracker login isn't working
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:02:04Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "@andrew you're logged into datatracker?
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:02:45Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "Andrew: this you register for the meeting?
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:02:53Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "*did
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:02:57Z"}, {"author": "Andrew Gallagher", "text": "Yes, I'm logged in on one tab, and I can get in here. But meetecho is opening a popup window for auth and it keeps saying \"unauthorized\"
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:03:36Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "Andrew: I don't see you in the list of registered participants for the meeting, though, so that's why you get the unauthorized
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:04:28Z"}, {"author": "Lorenzo Miniero", "text": "The datatracker authentication works, the check to see if you registered after that doesn't
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:04:55Z"}, {"author": "Alessandro Amirante", "text": "Andrew: if instead you did register to the meeting, please send an email to support@ietf.org to get this sorted
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:06:23Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "@andrew you can register now and look for the fee waiver option; takes a few mins but doable
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:08:27Z"}, {"author": "Ira McDonald", "text": "Don't plan to move to single PQC algorithms in the future - they may very well change in the next decade
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:26:20Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Gillmor", "text": "just logging a reminder here: @Aron Wussler please send gov't documents to align levels of PQ crypto composits to @Mike Ounsworth
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:26:59Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Hammell", "text": "I don't have a strong opinion regarding splitting encryption and signatures into separate drafts, but I prefer not splitting the draft by algorithm for the reason that there are general recommendations regarding which packet versions should support PQC and this shouldn't differ by algorithm.
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:40:20Z"}, {"author": "Jonathan Hammell", "text": "The decision whether to enforce non-separability for hybrid signatures intended to mitigate algorithm risks should not be confused with those wishing to apply fallback classical signatures for recipients that are not yet supporting PQ hybrid. This seems to be partially discussed already in the draft in the sections on Composite and Non-Composite signatures, though even in the Non-Composite case the I-D appears to give the option to validate multiple signatures for hybrid. That is, in the latter case, it is left to the application or user.
", "time": "2023-11-09T12:54:24Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "Whether to split the draft sounds straw-pollable...
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:03:23Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "hummable:-)
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:03:38Z"}, {"author": "Stephen Farrell", "text": "but probably better to get list discussion first
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:03:55Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "One PQ-related thought is interop and algorithm alignment with smartcard vendors. ... do we have any representation from OpenPGP-compatable hardware vendors?
\nThis is probably exactly Russ' point about common APIs and ciphersuite alignment between WGs and protocols.
Did we just ask people in the face-to-face meeting to speak up if they object to doing work in face-to-face meetings?
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:09:47Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Huigens", "text": "Fair enough :')
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:11:10Z"}, {"author": "Daniel Gillmor", "text": "@Mike Ounsworth Yutaka Niibe (\"gniibe\") from FSIJ has been active in the WG in the past, and is an OpenPGP smartcard guru (the gnuk is his project) -- agreed it would be good to get his feedback related to these upgrades.
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:11:55Z"}, {"author": "Aron Wussler", "text": "@Andrew Gallagher \"MAY WISH TO\" is standardized here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6919
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:18:57Z"}, {"author": "Mike Ounsworth", "text": "\n\nThe phrase \"MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON'T)\" is used to indicate
\n
\n requirements that are needed to meet formal review criteria (e.g.,
\n mandatory-to-implement security mechanisms), when these mechanisms
\n are too inconvenient for implementers to actually implement.
\n\nThis phrase is frequently used in a contracted form in which the
\n
\n parenthetical is omitted.
:rolling_on_the_floor_laughing:
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:20:25Z"}, {"author": "Justus Winter", "text": "To be clear, I don't think that this should hinder adoption by the WG.
", "time": "2023-11-09T13:25:17Z"}]