From having had my own prior interactions with you, I am entirely unsurprised that you're getting some cold shoulder due to other people's experiences with you.

As far as I can tell you're great at cryptography code. You've gotten better at the social parts of collaborative software engineering, but there's still room to grow.

Alberto (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/81639#issuecomment-58553...) found only a 75kB difference between the 'bloat' and your proposed patch in a stripped binary; and Roland (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/81639#issuecomment-58402...) contended:

> the symbols in your tester2 program account for ~67kb out of a 2.3mb binary

OP did find a "600k difference" in an unstripped comparison but if binary size was critical enough that 600k was a big deal, I'd assume users would be stripping the binaries outright or using a different language (tinygo perhaps) if a <100kb diff was on their list of concerns.

Isn't there still need for non- or post- FIPS-140 -like cipher restrictions in non FIPS-140 environments?

How much code is needed to implement Classical+PQ (Hybrid PQ) or PQ-only (Only PQ) cipher selection restrictions just?

FWIU, with golang:

  # This allows X25519MLKEM768 (Hybrid PQ)
  GODEBUG=fips140=on

  # This prevents any PQ ciphers from being used:
  GODEBUG=fips140=only

tlsref needs to be revised to specify PQ cipher lists.

It's been 2-4d since a maintainer replied. Why escalate the situation by trying to raise HN attention to it?

What's up with all the likes, urgency, and pressure? Is this part of some kind of operation?