On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:06 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Authors, > > While reviewing this document during Final Review, please resolve (as > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the source file. > > 1) <!-- [rfced] Document title > > a) How may we update the document title to clarify "ECDHE-MLKEM Key > Agreement”? > Note that we will add a hyphen for "MLKEM" (i.e., "ML-KEM"). > > Original: > Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3 > > Perhaps: > Post-Quantum Hybrid Key Agreement Mechanisms for TLS 1.3 That Combine > ML-KEM and > ECDHE > Coauthors, I prefer the original, but if we make a change, I'd prefer Post-Quantum Hybrid Key Agreement Mechanisms for TLS 1.3 with abbreviation PQ Hybrids for TLS 1.3 2) <!-- [rfced] Questions about ECDHE and ECDH > > Note: The abbreviation "ECDHE" refers to "Ephemeral Elliptic Curve > Diffie-Hellman", and the abbreviation "ECDH" refers to "Elliptic Curve > Diffie-Hellman". > > a) The document title and abstract use "ECDHE" (but the expansion in the > abstract does not include "Ephemeral"). A similar sentence in Section 2 > uses > "ECDH". Should the usage be aligned? > > Document title (uses "ECDHE"): > Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3 > > Abstract (uses "ECDHE" but expansion does not include "Ephemeral"): > This draft defines three hybrid key agreement mechanisms for TLS 1.3 > - X25519MLKEM768, SecP256r1MLKEM768, and SecP384r1MLKEM1024 - that > combine the post-quantum ML-KEM (Module-Lattice-Based Key > Encapsulation Mechanism) with an ECDHE (Elliptic Curve Diffie- > Hellman) exchange. > > Section 2 (uses "ECDH"): > This document introduces three new supported groups for hybrid post- > quantum key agreements in TLS 1.3: the X25519MLKEM768, > SecP256r1MLKEM768, and SecP384r1MLKEM1024 which combine ML-KEM with > ECDH in the manner of [hybrid]. > > > b) Both "ECDH" an "ECDHE" are also used elsewhere in the document, > including in > the IANA Considerations section. Please review all instances and let us > know if > any further updates are needed. > --> > Coauthors, I propose to mention emphemeral everywhere consistently. > 3) <!-- [rfced] In the title, abstract, and Section 2 (mentioned in the > previous > question), is there a preferred order for the words "post-quantum" and > "hybrid"? > Or is the current variation okay? > > For example, "post-quantum hybrid" is used in the document title, and > "hybrid > post-quantum" is used in Section 2. In the abstract, "post-quantum" is > placed > before "ML-KEM". > --> > "Hybrid post-quantum" sounds more natural to my ear, but "post-quantum hybrid" emphases what is important. I don't have an opinion. Coauthors? > 4) <!-- [rfced] RFC 8446 has been obsoleted by RFC 9846. Would you like to > update > instances of [RFC8446] to [RFC9846]? > > Note that if we update [RFC8446] to [RFC9846], we would also need to > update the > following section number (several instances in the document): > > Section 4.2.8.2 of [RFC8446] > Section 4.3.8.2 of [RFC9846] > Three instances to my count. > We do not believe this section number would need to be updated: > > Section 7.4.2 of [RFC8446] > Section 7.4.2 of [RFC9846] > > Please confirm. > Correct. > --> > > > 5) <!-- [rfced] May we combine Sections 2.1 and 3 into one section? > > Original: > 2.1. Terminology > > The [hybrid] document defines "traditional" algorithms as those that > are already widely adopted and "next-generation" algorithms as those > that are not yet widely adopted, such as post-quantum algorithms. In > this document, ECDH using Curve25519, P-256, or P-384 is considered > traditional, while ML-KEM is considered next-generation. > > The [hybrid] document also defines a "hybrid" key exchange as the > simultaneous use of multiple key exchange algorithms, with their > outputs combined to provide security as long as at least one of the > component algorithms remains secure, even if the others are > compromised. This document uses the term "hybrid" with the same > meaning. > > 3. Conventions and Definitions > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > Perhaps: > 3. Terminology > > [RFC9954] defines "traditional" algorithms as those that are already > widely adopted and "next-generation" algorithms as those that are not > yet widely adopted, such as post-quantum algorithms. In this > document, ECDH using Curve25519, P-256, or P-384 is considered > traditional, while ML-KEM is considered next-generation. > > [RFC9954] also defines a "hybrid" key exchange as the simultaneous > use of multiple key exchange algorithms, with their outputs combined > to provide security as long as at least one of the component > algorithms remains secure, even if the others are compromised. This > document uses the term "hybrid" with the same meaning. > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in > BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > --> > Ok. > 6) <!-- [rfced] Would adding "in [RFC9954]" after "framework" be helpful > here? > > Original: > This document applies the framework to ML-KEM and specifies code > points for the hybrid groups.a > > Perhaps; > This document applies the framework in [RFC9954] to ML-KEM and > specifies code > points for the hybrid groups. > --> > Yes. > 7) <!-- [rfced] Should the note in Section 4.1 of this document be in the > <aside> > element? It is defined as "a container for content that is semantically > less > important or tangential to the content that surrounds it" > (https://authors.ietf.org/en/rfcxml-vocabulary#aside). > --> > Yes. > 8) <!-- [rfced] Is "final" correct here? Or is "latest" or something > similar > intended? > > Original: > These identifiers are to be > used with the final, ratified by NIST, version of ML-KEM which is > specified in [NIST-FIPS-203]. > > Perhaps: > These identifiers are to be used with the latest version of ML-KEM > ratified by NIST, which is specified in [NIST-FIPS-203]. > --> > Final is correct. A changed algorithm will have a different name. > 9) <!-- [rfced] Throughout the text, the following terminology appears to > be used > inconsistently. Please review these occurrences and let us know if/how they > may be made consistent. > > key exchange value > key_exchange value > --> > Everywhere should be key_exchange. > 10) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have expanded the following abbreviation per > Section 3.6 > of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). Please review carefully to ensure > correctness. > > HMAC-based Key Derivation Function (HKDF) > --> > Correct. > 11) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of the > online Style > Guide <https://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > and let > us know if any changes are needed. Updates of this nature typically > result in > more precise language, which is helpful for readers. > We follow rfc9794—perhaps better to cite it? I reviewed the edits already made. They look good. Kris, I'd like to highlight that the spelling of your name changed. > Thank you. > Thanks! Best, Bas > > Madison Church and Rebecca VanRheenen > RFC Production Center > > > On Jul 23, 2026, at 3:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10024 <draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem> > > Your document is now available for Final Review (previously AUTH48). Once > it has been > reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an > RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies; > see the Unavailable Authors section > (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is an archival mailing list > to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial > queue; it is not an active discussion list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use 'REPLY ALL', > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10024-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10024/ > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 10024 (draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem) > > Title : Post-quantum hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for > TLSv1.3 > Author(s) : K. Kwiatkowski, > P. Kampanakis, > B. Westerbaan, > D. Stebila > WG Chair(s) : Joseph Salowey, Sean Turner, Deirdre Connolly > Area Director(s) : Deb Cooley, Christopher Inacio >
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
