I support publication of this draft. Some of the feedback in the thread appears to treat this last call as if the document were intended to be published as an Internet Standard. It is not. The intended RFC status is Informational, and the IANA actions allocate code points for reference and interoperability/testing, not as a WG recommendation for TLS deployments (Recommended: N).
If the WG wants to separately discuss recommending this code point for TLS implementers, that is worth a thorough discussion. But that question should be kept separate from whether to publish this Informational document, which is the focus of this last call thread. Nick On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 2:06 PM Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> wrote: > This message starts the second Working Group Last Call for the pure ML-KEM > document (draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07). > > > The file can be retrieved from: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/ > > The diff with the previous WGLC draft (-05) is here: > > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07&difftype=--html > <https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-06&difftype=--html> > > > The main focus of this WGLC is to review new text providing more context > around the use of pure ML-KEM. For those who indicated they wanted this > text, please let us know if the new text satisfies you and if you support > publication. This working group last call will end on February 27, 2026. > > > Thank You. > _______________________________________________ > 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]
