> If you're saying that these quotes are all wrong, can you please point to the > evidence? These are not wrong; AFAIK, this is a bit of an on-going discussion with the NSA: not everyone agrees that pure ML-KEM is safe enough.
Just to be clear: I'm fine if SecP384r1MLKEM1024 remains "not recommended"; I object to its removal. Cheers, Andrei -----Original Message----- From: D. J. Bernstein <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 12:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Working Group Last Call for Post-quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3 Andrei Popov writes: > my primary concern is CNSA-compliant environments. Thanks for clarifying---but haven't we been hearing NSA and its vendors say that NSA won't buy hybrids anyway (so NSA's curve choices have zero relevance to the hybrid draft)? For example: * https://web.archive.org/web/20250613195524/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ESCdYNwVeF4VkvoORFJLJk_87VU/ ("we do not anticipate supporting hybrid in NSS"); * https://web.archive.org/web/20250613195524/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/S9Mwv28VEHrG189ZtoubUani7J8/ ("that's what they're willing to buy" re non-hybrids); * https://web.archive.org/web/20250613195524/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/xUKIoHQwm1BjNZWS2x3xb-BhsLI/ ("we are looking for products that support ... /standalone/ ML-KEM-1024. ... Our interactions with vendors suggests that this won't be a problem"). If you're saying that these quotes are all wrong, can you please point to the evidence? Thanks in advance. ---D. J. Bernstein ===== NOTICES REGARDING IETF ===== It has come to my attention that IETF LLC believes that anyone filing a comment, objection, or appeal is engaging in a copyright giveaway by default, for example allowing IETF LLC to feed that material into AI systems for manipulation. Specifically, IETF LLC views any such material as a "Contribution", and believes that WG chairs, IESG, and other IETF LLC agents are free to modify the material "unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution (in the form specified by the Legend Instructions)". I am hereby explicitly disallowing such modifications. Regarding "form", my understanding is that "Legend Instructions" currently refers to the portion of https://web.archive.org/web/20250306221446/https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf saying that the situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications nor to allow publication as an RFC" must be expressed in the following form: "This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft". That expression hereby applies to this message. I'm fine with redistribution of copies of this message. There are no confidentiality restrictions on this message. The issue here is with modifications, not with dissemination. For other people concerned about what IETF LLC is doing: Feel free to copy these notices into your own messages. If you're preparing text for an IETF standard, it's legitimate for IETF LLC to insist on being allowed to modify the text; but if you're just filing comments then there's no reason for this. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
