Hi Panos,
Thanks for producing this draft, it'll obviously be very important going
forward. A few thoughts on v01 below:
Abstract states:
> [...] theoretical weaknesses in ML-KEM as it is relatively new.
This line won't age well – it won't be "relatively new" in 10 years' time.
Should this c
the future if the WG converges
that direction.
Thank you for the feedback. Hopefully IPSECME will discuss this draft in
Brisbane.
-Original Message-
From: IPsec On Behalf Of Ben S3
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 4:48 AM
To: Kampanakis, Panos ; ipsec@ietf.org
Cc: Ravago, Gerardo
Subject:
Adam, and Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Sent: 04 October 2024 13:44
To: Adam R ; Adam R ; Ben S3
; Ben S3 ; Jonathan C
; Jonathan C
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-salter-ipsecme-sha3-00.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-salter-ipsecme-sha3-
I support adoption.
Best,
Ben
-Original Message-
From: IETF Secretariat
Sent: 18 March 2025 16:08
To: draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ik...@ietf.org; ipsec@ietf.org;
ipsecme-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [IPsec] The IPSECME WG has placed draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2 in
state "Call For Adoption By
I support adoption, although I note that draft-kampanakis-ml-kem-ikev2 has not
been adopted yet. If the authors of that document wanted it to be adopted, I'd
propose that standardising PQ key exchange is the more important thing for the
WG to focus its PQ efforts for now.
If we're confident we
025 09:47
To: Adam R ; Adam R ; Ben S3
; Ben S3 ; Jonathan C
; Jonathan C
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-salter-ipsecme-sha3-01.txt
A new version of Internet-Draft draft-salter-ipsecme-sha3-01.txt has been
successfully submitted by Ben S and posted to the IETF repository.
Name:
