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 > Thanks for the pointer. In my reading, this PDF only establishes their > transition to PQC, which could very much be hybrids. At best, it seems to > just have a quick mention of FIPS 203 in "Additional Explanatory Notes" and > that could be used in hybrid fashion in TLS, no? Am I missing something? > As I said, a formal vote was needed to send this LS. That alone demonstrates consensus that they want pure ML-KEM as an option. It does not mean that other options will not be supported. > Regarding consensus: While the vote to send the LS confirms IEEE’s interest > in the progress of the draft, does that vote specifically endorse an > exclusive non-hybrid implementation in TLS? If there is a record (e.g., > meeting recording, email thread) of technical rationale within 802.11 for > preferring pure ML-KEM over hybrid, that would be very helpful for the WG to > see, and maybe use in the draft for motivation. > Nothing in their LS says anything about "exclusive".
You can find reports and minutes with your favorite search engine. For example: https://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/index.html Russ
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
