[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26)

[Stephen Farrell]

Hiya,

Just to clarify my position a little, based on what some others
have said: I'd prefer this not be published at all for a few years
at least.

I'd also prefer we develop a security area BCP that covers the
hybrid vs. pure KEMs topic and make that a normative reference
for all RFCs documenting pure PQ KEMs.

Much worse than either of the above would be to add specific text
to this document saying we prefer hybrids. But at the very least
that has to be done. If that's done soon and there's another WGLC
for this document, I'll still oppose publication on the basis of
the 1st two reasons above.

Cheers,
S.


On 05/11/2025 19:00, Stephen Farrell wrote:

I re-read the document. It has zero commentary on the issues about
hybrids vs. pure PQ. It may be hard to reach rough consensus on what
to say about that, but it is a topic where people have significantly
different opinions, so I think we ought say something, for example,
along the lines of, "At the time of writing a significant number of
knowledgeable people consider it better to deploy hybrid KEMS, while
some do dispute that. Opinions may change over time." I'd be happy
but surprised if the WG had consensus to add such text, but we
should. Absent that, I think producing an RFC based on this draft
provides a misleading signal to the community.

Also - what happened to the adopt-but-park plan? Did that get lost
in the fog of appeals?

Cheers,
S.

On 05/11/2025 18:51, Sean Turner via Datatracker wrote:

Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26)

This message starts a 3-week WG Last Call for this document.

Abstract:
    This memo defines ML-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024 as
    NamedGroups and and registers IANA values in the TLS Supported Groups
    registry for use in TLS 1.3 to achieve post-quantum (PQ) key
    establishment.

File can be retrieved from:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/

Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the

highly appreciated.

Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the

[1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the

be found at [3].

Thank you.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/



_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org

publication of this document by replying to this email keeping tls@ietf.org in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org