Hi Usama,
At 12:38 PM 06-04-2026, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:
Of course, I had seen and already cited the report of March meeting
in my email [0]. It provides no technical rationale why they are
supporting pure ML-KEM, e.g., any research (e.g., cryptanalysis)
that they have done that we can cite in the draft.
It deeply surprises me that IEEE is starting off its PQC transition
with non-hybrids rather than hybrids. If they have done no analysis,
we should tell them the risks and that hybrids are currently
preferable. That's why I keep emphasizing that we should first
recommend hybrids and that risks should be thoroughly mentioned in
pure ML-KEM draft, if we are to publish it.
There is a webpage for the IEEE P802.11- Task Group BT at
https://www.ieee802.org/11/Reports/tgbt_update.htm If I understood
correctly, the group may be pursuing hybrid or pure PQC. The
decision may depend on whether the objective is to meet CNSA 2.0
compliance tests or not [1].
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/26/11-26-0652-00-00bt-ietf-request-for-pure-ml-kem-liaison.pptx
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
