Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem-07: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ipsecme-ikev2-mlkem/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors and the WG for their work on this document. I have one question and one comment that I would like to share for your consideration. 1) section 1.1 - the following two statements seem somewhat contradicting? ".. or in some rare cases a distinguished error value." "Note that ML-KEM's Decaps routine uses implicit rejection and will not return a distinguished error value." 2) IANA Considerations - This is a minor thing; I believe these values are already allocated by IANA and only this document references needs to be update to RFC-TBD? If so, please consider updating the text that way. _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
