On 12.02.26 20:05, Joseph Salowey wrote:
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.
Thanks for updates. My concerns are unaddressed: 1. No introduction: at least give an overview of important places to visit in PQ-land for tourists like me (namely other PQC efforts in TLS WG) 2. Insufficient motivation: who needs it? who will implement it? 3. No additional references added in motivation since WGLC: IIRC, John Mattsson mentioned some references in the previous WGLC (will have to dig the links). I wonder why they were not added. 4. Which "regulatory frameworks require standalone PQ"? Please give authentic references with exact section numbers. 5. "targeting smaller key sizes or less computation": smaller compared to what? Please give authentic references of where key size comparison is done. 6. simplicity: in terms of what criteria? Please give authentic references.Unless the above happens, I *oppose* publication of -07, independent of the mechanisms defined in the draft.
I have created an issue [0] to track this. Thanks for reconsideration. -Usama [0] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/issues/9
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
