Hi Joe,
On 22/03/2026 17:49, Joseph Salowey wrote:
ML-KEM WGLC Update We are working through issues brought up during the working group last call. We believe addressing these issues is necessary to determine if we have rough consensus to move forward. We expect the author to address the following points: * Key Reuse * Text for preferring Hybrids * Whether to include motivations (see Liaison Statement) We expect resolving these issues will take a few weeks after which we will run a targeted consensus call to see if text changes are acceptable to the working group.
The above seems to me unclear and hard to understand. Are you saying that the 2nd WGLC failed due to a lack of rough consensus? (Or not?) Either way, I don't know what you mean by a "targeted consensus call" - if the 2nd WGLC failed, then surely another WGLC will be needed or the draft is just stalled. If the 2nd WGLC succeeded, then (that'd be a surprise and) I don't get why some other consensus call would be needed, nor for what. So I'm confused, sorry. I do get that sometimes the result of a WGLC is "go ahead after fixing these nits" but I don't see how that applies in a situation with the fairly fundamental controversies we've seen related to this draft. Cheers, S.
Thanks, Sean and Joe _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
