Hi Ekr, Appreciate the comments. Errors on WG-process are my own, certainly.
The discussion I've heard from my end has significantly more worries. Of course, if there are no such worries -- and pure-mlkem for TLS1.3 is swiftly moving to publication as an RFC, great. --Daniel On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:02 PM Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 11:53 AM Daniel Apon <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> I am aware there was a recent "mandatory call" for pure-mlkem that >> recently failed. It might surprise those who know me to hear that I agree >> with that mandatory call failing. I do not think it's the proper time for >> pure-mlkem to be mandatory. >> > > This is not correct. There was never a call for pure ML-KEM to be > mandatory, > or, for that matter, even recommended. The call was for consensus on > requesting > publication of the document. > > > >> So, my general call is for the following: >> 1) Adopt hybrid-ECC-MLKEM for TLS 1.3 >> > > This has already happened. In fact, the WG has requested publication of > this document. > > > >> 2) Adopt ML-KEM-only for TLS 1.3 >> > > This has also already happened. The discussion on the table is whether to > request > publication of this document in its current optional state. That is also > the context > of the upcoming call mentioned by the chairs. > > -Ekr > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
