Hi, Alright, but that's the issue. I hope we can stick to that point.
"migrating beyond hybrids and for users that need to be fully post-quantum." Where does the need to be solely PQ arise? Is it weaker in some way to use a hybrid? thanks, Rob On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 1:10 PM Deirdre Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-04.html#name-motivation > > > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-becker-cnsa2-tls-profile-02.html#name-the-commercial-national-sec > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 4:07 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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]
