“Post-Quantum Hybrid Key Agreement Mechanisms for TLS 1.3” that Bas is proposing is fine by me.
+1 on mentioning ephemeral everywhere consistently. “post-quantum hybrid” aligns with “PQ/T hybrid” in RFC9794. I suggest we swap with “PQ/T hybrid” or “Post-Quantum Traditional hybrid” in the whole document wherever there is a “hybrid”. “post-quantum ML-KEM” in the Abstract is fine imo. “quantum-resistant ML-KEM” would also be fine. I think Bas, covered all the other questions. Rgs, Panos From: Bas Westerbaan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 9:09 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; Kampanakis, Panos <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Final Review: RFC-to-be 10024 (draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem) in XML CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:06 AM <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]
