Hi, That does not answer my question: why?
The hybrid draft has a rationale: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-16#name-motivation-for-use-of-hybri thanks, Rob On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 1:02 PM Deirdre Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > The drafts and the profile currently do not make Recommendations or MTI's, > they make the options available; ekr has now raised promoting one hybrid > option as Recommended = Y. Not everyone can or should use the same options, > we have a diversity of curves for example > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 3:56 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 12:33 PM Deirdre Connolly < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> CNSA 2.0 does not support hybrids in general, and their TLS profile only >>> supports ML-KEM-1024: >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-becker-cnsa2-tls-profile/ >>> >> >> Hi, >> >> But why is that? See this thread from the IETF general list: >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Xei2iDOk6zorD4oFnLoJ5mAdkdQ/ >> >> As pointed out in that thread, all of these drafts seem to conflict with >> the rationale in draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design. >> >> thanks, >> Rob >> >>
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
