Dear co-authors.
Please find my responses below:
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
I agree, this short title sounds better.
Coauthors, I propose to mention emphemeral everywhere consistently.
Makes sense
"Hybrid post-quantum" sounds more natural to my ear, but "post-quantum
hybrid" emphases what is important. I don't have an opinion. Coauthors?
Same here. Let's use "post-quantum hybrid", for a reason mentioned above.
Three instances to my count.
This should be merged now.
5) <!-- [rfced] May we combine Sections 2.1 and 3 into one section?
Let's combine.
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.
+1 "Final" is correct.
Although, just referring to NIST-FIPS-203 looks also OK to me (link in the RFC
points to correct version).
Kris, I'd like to highlight that the spelling of your name changed.
Yes, all good here. I've asked to use my full/real name.
I agree with all the other changes.
Cheers,
Kris
--
auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
