On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 7:05 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin, > > You haven’t formed a complete sentence here. That’s usually allowable, but > not in this instance. > > Uri said there might be “special cases”. Anyone can make TLS 1.2 PQ, it > just won’t be called TLS. >
I'm not Martin, but I believe that his point is that both TLS ciphersuites and TLS supported groups/EC curves permit registration outside of the IETF process based on the existence of.a specification. As long as PQC can fit into new ciphersuites and group types, then anyone can specify it for TLS 1.2, and it would in fact be TLS, just not standardized or Recommended. -Ekr > thanks, > Rob > > On Mon, Jan 1, 2024 at 17:56 Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023, at 10:23, Salz, Rich wrote: >> > Of course. We’re not the protocol police and nobody from the IETF will >> > come and arrest anyone who uses Kyber-based key exchange in TLS 1.2 But >> > with this document, they will not be able to register such an algorithm >> > for 1.2 >> >> I don’t think we can go that far. Our registry policies would allow >> someone else to define something PQC-ish we are only saying that we >> .intend. to not define something with “official” standing. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
