I share the confusion about what this is for. SLH-DSA is handy, but it seems to not fit TLS very well at all.
There's also rather a lot of algorithms proposed to be added here, so I am correspondingly that many missing use cases worth of confused. On Fri, May 16, 2025, 17:06 Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't support adoption. > > It is not clear to me what an RFC for a ciphersuite is supposed to > signal. To the extent it indicates this solution is prefered, the fact > that SLH-DSA is a very awkward fit for server auth makes me think we > should say no. > > Sincerely, > Watson Ladd > > On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 6:28 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > > We are continuing with our WG adoption calls for the following I-D: Use > of SLH-DSA in TLS 1.3 [1]; see [2] for more information about this tranche > of adoption calls. If you support adoption and are willing to review and > contribute text, please send a message to the list. If you do not support > adoption of this draft, please send a message to the list and indicate why. > This call will close at 2359 UTC on 30 May 2025. > > > > Reminder: This call for adoption has nothing to do with picking the > mandatory-to-implement cipher suites in TLS. > > > > Cheers, > > Joe and Sean > > > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-tls-slhdsa/ > > [2] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/KMOTm_lE5OIAKG8_chDlRKuav7c/ > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org > > > > -- > Astra mortemque praestare gradatim > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
