Hiya,
I'm happy to replay one of my messages from the previous WGLC as I don't think the situation has changed: "I'd prefer this not be published at all for a few years at least.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." A quick scan of the diff between -05 and -07 seems to indicate that -07 does not in fact say we prefer hybrids, so that's yet another reason for me to oppose progression. Cheers, S. PS: Is the version in the subject wrong? On 12/02/2026 19:05, Joseph Salowey wrote:
This message starts the second Working Group Last Call for the pure ML-KEM document (draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07). The file can be retrieved from: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/ The diff with the previous WGLC draft (-05) is here: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07&difftype=--html <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-06&difftype=--html> The main focus of this WGLC is to review new text providing more context around the use of pure ML-KEM. For those who indicated they wanted this text, please let us know if the new text satisfies you and if you support publication. This working group last call will end on February 27, 2026. Thank You. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
