Back to the topic at hand. I think it'd very bad if we'd have a codepoint for pure ML-KEM before we have a codepoint for an ML-KEM hybrid. Process wise, I think that's up to the designated experts of the IANA registry.
Best, Bas On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 3:16 AM Deirdre Connolly <durumcrustu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have uploaded a preliminary version of ML-KEM for TLS 1.3 > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement/> > and have a more fleshed out > <https://github.com/dconnolly/draft-tls-mlkem-key-agreement> version to > be uploaded when datatracker opens. It is a straightforward new > `NamedGroup` to support key agreement via ML-KEM-768 or ML-KEM-1024, in a > very similar style to -hybrid-design > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design/>. > > It will be nice to have pure-PQ options (that are FIPS / CNSA 2.0 > compatible) ready to go when users are ready to use them. > > Cheers, > Deirdre > _______________________________________________ > 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
