I also agree. Specify A, and do not compare it to B. The security considerations should focus on A and make not mention of B.
Russ > On Apr 29, 2026, at 12:57 AM, John Mattsson > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree with EKR and David. > > From: David Benjamin <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 29 April 2026 at 01:47 > To: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> > Cc: TLS List <[email protected]> > Subject: [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3 > > I agree with EKR. > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 7:42 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > For the record, I do not think we should merge this PR. As someone said > earlier, when we specify A we don't need to add text comparing it to B. > > -Ekr > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 4:37 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar > <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear Sean, > > On 28.04.26 23:24, Stephen Farrell wrote: > > On 28/04/2026 21:24, Sean Turner wrote: > >> Hi! The chairs have judged that there is consensus to progress this > >> I-D. > > > > Well, that's a terse summary of a surprising conclusion. (And not > > even 'rough'?) > > > > I think it'd be good to understand the chairs' reasoning as to why > > the various objections have been sufficiently deal with. > > I have read recent exchanges in the thread again, checked the repo and I > share Stephen's concerns. It would be helpful to understand the > rationale of how several concerns have been addressed to consensus. I am > specially concerned because PR [0] for statement on composites has not > even been merged, as of now. > > Best regards, > > -Usama > > > [0] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-mldsa/pull/32 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
