eh... Thanks Ekr.

Yes, I support publication of this document.


On 24/11/2025 22:52, Eric Rescorla wrote:


On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 2:47 PM Kris Kwiatkowski <[email protected]> wrote:

    I support adoption, as long as the RECOMMENDED field is set to N at this
    point in time (which is a case).


Just to avoid doubt, you mean "publication", because this doc is in WGLC?

-Ekr


    Nits:

    * draft talks about "expanded keys" and "decapsulation key seeds", but
    does not define them. I think it would be good to refer to the relevant
    sections in the FIPS-203, to make it clear what they are.
    * Section 4. ends weirdly "Section 4.2.7 of [RFC8446]" - should this be
    a full sentence?
    * Double 'and' in the Abstract "...NamedGroups and and registers
    IANA..." and double 'the' in Section 5.

    Kris

    On 08/11/2025 15:37, Russ Housley wrote:
    I support adoption.

    I am pleased to see the IANA registry entries for the ML-KEM code points as 
RECOMMENDED = N; at some point in the future the TLS WG might want to change 
that, but this seems like the right place to start.

    Nits:

    Abstract: s/and and/and/

    Section 1.1: s/key establishment/key encapsulation/

    Russ

    On Nov 5, 2025, at 1:51 PM, Sean Turner via Datatracker<[email protected]> 
<mailto:[email protected]> 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
    publication of this document by replying to this email [email protected]
    in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are
    highly appreciated.

    Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the
    Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 
79
    [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
    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
    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 [email protected]
    To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
    _______________________________________________
    TLS mailing list [email protected]
    To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
    _______________________________________________
    TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
    To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to