On Mon, 23 Feb 2026, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:
On 23.02.26 15:24, Eric Rescorla wrote:
mark the algorithms in draft-ietf-ecdhe-mlkem Y
I support this update to draft-ietf-ecdhe-mlkem, and propose that this should
be published before pure ML-KEM draft. I believe it could be a short "Update"
draft and we should adopt it quickly and get it done quickly.
draft-ietf-ecdhe-mlkem is at the RFC Editor queue and an update as you
suggest is not appropriate anymore. A new draft would need to be started
for this. And such draft should await the major algorithm drafts that
TLS thinks it will publish so it can argue them all at once. I am not
sure if we are there yet?
And before people put too much work into this, I recommend taking a step
back and discuss what you want to document. The current threads on this
seems to conflate "recommended to implement" and "recommended default
value". In general, TLS WG documents specify advise for implementers,
and profile RFCs (that flow usually via the ISE) specify usage profiles.
Paul
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
