Hiya,
On 10/11/2025 16:26, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
Except for a few dissenters who absolutely can’t accept that somebody else may use pure mlkem1024.
I'm quite fine with being classified as a dissenter:-) (*) Aside from the quote above I assume being intended as a pejorative, that doesn't I think capture at least my objection to this draft as-is. I think we ought not publish this without some guidance for those who are deploying now/soon. I think (as per [1]) that we should provide guidance that will encourage interop and security, and this draft does not currently do that, instead it (IMO) encourages a lack of interop and use of perhaps more risky implementations. Cheers, S. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-tls-pqg/ (*) The term dissenter has a history where I'm from where it's a more-or-less positive term if you read the 18th century history and factor out the mythology, religion, secret-societies and violence around e.g. Wolfe Tone and the united Irishmen. I don't know if someone's tried to map 18th century revolutions to our current situation of corporate dominance, but I bet it could be (and probably has been) done:-)
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
