Actually, some people are taking QKD seriously, and so just ignoring the LS may be unwise.
I'm not sure what such an LS response ought to be, though. Telling them to make sure they use RFC 8773 would be one obvious step (so that the QKD can't make things worse), but their LS makes it sound like they want cooperation, not just advice. And, I suspect that this working group, as a whole, isn't interested. Of course, they can (or anyone else) could make an individual submission to the TLS working group. I'm not sure if pointing that out would be helpful. ________________________________ From: Martin Thomson <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 7:05 PM To: John Mattsson <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Mansfield <[email protected]> Subject: [TLS] Re: LS on the work item related to QKD and TLS integration framework in SG13 On Sat, Mar 21, 2026, at 08:13, John Mattsson wrote: > I am worried about the ITU-T work on TLS, which seems to significantly > lower the security. > https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/2141/ > > I suggest that TLS WG replies [...] I don't think any response is necessary. I see little risk of people taking QKD seriously, so nor should we. _______________________________________________ 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]
