+1   Agreeing with Stephen is new to me but there is a first time for 
everything.  ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:50 PM
To: Martin Thomson <m...@lowentropy.net>; Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL 
<u...@ll.mit.edu>; tls@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Requesting working group adoption of 


On 12/02/2020 21:57, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Only a few of them.  Some are OK, but the number is few, I agree.  I 
> haven't found a good summary of the second round candidates and I 
> don't have time to dig into all of the candidates.
Fine reason to wait and see IMO.

I'd be much happier adopting this if we did that with the explicit 
understanding that we won't produce an RFC until the "winners" in the NIST 
process are known and their properties understood. (I don't mean waiting for a 
FIPS or formal NIST document but at least for the final announcement from their 

If the plan were to adopt this and produce an RFC now (e.g. to mix different 
curves or something) then I am against that. There's no need for such 
combinations so the real rationale here is PQC and we (at least I, but I 
suspect also many IETF participants) don't know enough about the relevant 
algorithms yet. (And expecting us to be knowledgeable about 25+ algorithms 
isn't realistic.)


U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains 
information that is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy 
laws, and is also confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please be advised that you are legally prohibited from 
retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this 
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have 
received this communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you 
in advance for your cooperation.

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to