Based on the input over the last week, I'm going to say that we have consensus
for the adoption of both of these drafts. (Whew!) In response to Dan's comment
about whether there should be one document or two, we can certainly debate the
matter as the WG iterates on the drafts.
I do not believe any change in our charter is required as we already have a
charter item that covers "Documents for the maintenance and update of existing
EAP protocols".
Aritra and Tiru, please prepare WG -00 versions of your documents and post them
for approval. Thank you.
-Peter and Joe
On 7/2/25, 10:26 AM, "Peter Yee" <[email protected] wrote:
The calls for adoption on these two drafts will end in one week. If we don't
hear sufficient interest from working group participants, the documents simply
will not be adopted. Now's the time to make your voices heard. Please send
signs of support to the mailing list if you feel these drafts are worth the
WG's time.
Thank you.
-Peter and Joe
On 6/25/25, 4:29 AM, "Peter Yee" <[email protected]> wrote:
These two drafts have been presented at past IETF meetings. They cover PQC
variants for the existing EAP-AKA' FS mechanism (RFC 9678). One is pure PQC,
the other is a classical/PQC hybrid.
The call for adoption will end on July 9th. Please do send your thoughts to the
mailing list on whether one, both, or none of these drafts should be adopted.
If adopted, we hope to have these on the agenda for discussion during the
Madrid meeting next month.
-Peter and Joe
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ar-emu-hybrid-pqc-eapaka/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ra-emu-pqc-eapaka/
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
