+1 Stephen's idea is nice, I think. Giving some explanations on hybrid vs pure PQ is neccesary. TLS IANA registration does show the recommendation from the WG, but not all RFC readers know this well.
Personaly, I like hybrid solutions but can live for pure PQ ones for limited cases. Guilin 发件人：Stephen Farrell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 收件人：Sean Turner <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;[email protected] <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 时 间：2025-11-06 03:01:20 主 题：[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26) 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 > publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [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 to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
