"Salz, Rich" <[email protected]> writes: > * > I understand that we can find any arguments for or against anything > nowadays, but let's standardize the codepoints which have already been > assigned by IANA. There is no reason to break this document in > separate documents. > > In fact, the TLS registry designated experts asked that the three > separate drafts by combined.
Presumably that's because they target the same intended status? If we decide to publish X25519MLKEM768 as StandardsTrack/Recommended=Y/MUST, together with some other hybrid PQ for diversity, which I argue that we should do, it seems prudent to drop the NIST ECC curve variants into a separate document. I don't see sufficient arguments to publish the NIST ECC variants as StandardsTrack. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
