On Sun, Jul 5, 2026 at 9:55 AM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On 7/5/26, 12:33 PM, "Andrew Lee" <[email protected]> wrote: > > - Thank you for confirming, on the record, that the Canadian > government plans to recommend solo ML-KEM for TLS despite the document > carrying a RECOMMENDED=N flag. This is the single most important piece of > evidence in this entire debate, because it proves that RECOMMENDED=N is > meaningless in practice. > > > You misunderstand what RECOMMENDED=N means. Quoting from an actual > registry[1] > > If the "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily > mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either > has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited > applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. … > Note that it in 8447-bis this reads: Indicates that the item has not been evaluated by the IETF and that the IETF has made no statement about the suitability of the associated mechanism. This does not necessarily mean that the mechanism is flawed, only that no consensus exists. The IETF might have consensus to leave an items marked as "N" on the basis of its having limited applicability or usage constraints. This seems like it would be a fairly accurate description of the situation around this draft. -Ekr > > This is exactly what Jonathan is saying: > Therefore, our general guidance is not recommending one over the other, as > it may be a use case specific decision. > > [1] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
