Usama:
>
> Soliciting an LS to "do the trick" for showing consensus does not address the
> technical concerns of two dozen people who have opposed publication in the
> WGLC. Given that there is no public evidence of IEEE 802.11bt having
> consensus on using pure ML-KEM in TLS protocol, isn't it fair to ask for
> technical rationale?
This response ignores a lot of context that has already been shared in this
thread. I am responding so that people that have not been following closely do
not this your red text is correct.
IEEE 802.11bt is an approved project to add PQC to 802.11 wireless network
standards, which already make use of EAP-TLS. The Project Authorization
Request (PAR) explicitly mentions ML-DSA, ML-KEM and SLH-DSA as examples of PQC
algorithms. The TLS WG has adopted draft-ietf-tls-mldsa, draft-ietf-tls-mlkem,
and other algorithm-related I-Ds, which indicates to the rest of the world that
PQC algorithm documents are in the works. On the IETF/IEEE 802 coordination
call prior to IETF 125, the was a heads up that the WGLC for
draft-ietf-tls-mlkem was underway, but it might not achieve rough consensus.
The IEEE 802.11 WG sent a LS to indicate their desire foe the document.
Sending that LS required a formal vote, so your statement is absolutely
incorrect.
You can find the approved Project Authorization Request (PAR) for 802.11bt
here:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/25/11-25-0958-00-0PQC-draft-p802-11bt-par.pdf
Russ
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
