Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote: > The broader IETF consensus is captured in [0], since it is in > the publication queue.
> To overturn that broader IETF consensus captured in [0], > proponents have to come up with strong technical arguments, > because the burden of proof here is on the proponents, not > the opponents. I don’t think you can point at an informative section motivating the use of hybrid ML-DSA in one draft and claim that it blocks the use of non-hybrid ML-DSA everywhere else, particularly when there is already a published RFC for non-hybrid ML-DSA from the same working group with the same use case [1]. Peter > Sincerely, > > -Usama > > [0] > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-sigs-19.html#section-9.1 [1] RFC 9881: "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure – Algorithm Identifiers for the Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Algorithm (ML-DSA)".
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
