Dear Robert and Peter, Thank you for sharing IEEE 802.11 WG position.
The IEEE 802.11 Working Group would like to express support for publication of draft-ietf-tls-mlkem as an RFC with its definition of key establishment options that use pure ML-KEM.
I was actually hoping to see some /technical rationale/ for support of publication. The attachment to the LS just repeats the same statement. Am I missing something? If not, may I kindly ask if you could possibly enlighten us with technical reasons behind this support? In particular, has IEEE 802.11 WG done some research, such as cryptanalysis? Pointers to the analysis would be very helpful.
Moreover, was the IEEE 802.11 WG aware of this recent draft [0]? In the light of this, I am curious if IEEE 802.11 WG still believes there is /real need/ for RFC.
Finally, I would like to know if IEEE 802.11 WG position is that this RFC should be published independent of recommending hybrids [1]?
Looking forward to more insights. Thank you! Best regards, -Usama[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email/
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-usama-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-update/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
