[acdha]

You’re being rude, which wouldn’t be good even if you weren’t wrong on all three counts. This is not contriving positively.

(Consider the difference between extensive peer-review and “appeal to authority”, not to mention the IETF’s dual role encouraging research along with mainstream deployments)

[chr15m]

I have edited my post to remove the rude acronym. Thank you for your feedback.

I do not think the response addresses the claims made, and uses logical fallacies in place of a well reasoned response.

> a team of highly-regarded European academic cryptographers

This is absolutely an appeal to authority.

[acdha]

They didn’t get MLKEM deployed by saying “I’m a professor of computer science at $UNI, do it!” but by working within the community for many years and going through an elaborate review and standardization process with extensive peer review and public comment. That’s not infallible but it’s misleading to talk about it as if it’s the same as the U.S. federal government (a real capital-A authority) mandating it.

This matters because academic reputation is so important in the field: none of these people can force even their own universities to adopt something and if you say they pushed something through covertly you’re making a really serious claim about a core professional trait which reflects not only on them but also many of their colleagues who reviewed and supported that proposal, and that should have evidence that this was bulled through rather than simply asserting it.

[chr15m]

Correct. The argument is not about the deployment or the technical quality of MLKEM. Pretending it is, is an appeal to authority, and is moving the goal posts from the actual argument.