planetf1
commented
6 days ago I don't see any technical issues with a repo change, indeed github adds a redirect to the old name, so even forks should continue working. We'd need to rename in UI & also update our access management tools.
We can discuss the name change today. I agree with your premise around lack of x86-64 support being an impediment broadly for pqcp. We have mlkem-c-generic that isn't yet onboard, though I still think there may be a place for a 'reference' implementation, alongside a more optimized/curated version which you have here?
@hanno-becker and I would like to broaden the scope of MLKEM-C-AArch64 from Arm-focused to application-core focused, notably including support for x86_64. We believe that lack of support for x86_64 is an adoption barrier, as it forces consuming repositories to maintain two copies of largely but not entirely matching C code. In contrast, having a single C base as close as possible to mlkem-c-generic, and a common C<->ASM/Native interface that's implemented by AArch64 and x86_64 backends (and whatever comes in the future), will be easier to work with.
Obviosuly, we do need a new name, and we'd like to propose mlkem-native (as-in "native code", capturing both ASM and intrinsics). Let us know if there are other suggestions.
We do not quite know what the process of a repository name change is, but by posting it here, we wanted to give everyone the opportunity to comment and we'll raise it during the next TSC meeting.