Hi Thom, all,Since the formal analysis has received review from FATT, that resolves my objection #1 in [0].
I like Thom's concise suggestion in PR#20. If people can agree on his proposal, that will resolve my objection #2 in [0] as well. I am fine with some wordsmithing that does not change the meaning.
I've closed PR#22 so that we can focus on Thom's proposal in PR#20 and hopefully agree on it.
Assuming Thom's proposal is agreed, all my objections will be resolved. WG is then welcome to do a WGLC or to keep discussing it until either ECDHE or ML-KEM actually breaks, because I don't currently see anything technical left to be done. FWIW, I suggest that the invariant in the case of discussion should be to bring novel arguments to the table to move forward.
On 12.06.26 17:39, Thom Wiggers wrote:
The modeling choices seems appropriate.
Thanks for taking the time to check. Really appreciate it.
As everybody is putting their peer reviewer hats on, I’d love to see a bit more discussion of related work in the paper, [...]
I agree with this observation. As you propose in the PR, we can cite the missing papers directly in the draft. If I had that hat of peer reviewer, I would be more concerned on making the introduction more professional, regardless of the technical merits of the paper.
Kind regards, -Usama [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NPOK-YKZGoRYE1xZA_57mULvoEg/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
