Sure, we can do that; I've made an issue in Github to track that.
Douglas
> On Aug 13, 2024, at 6:38 AM, Thom Wiggers wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think this is great and what better time to do this than with the
> publication of FIPS 203 this week.
>
> The one thing that remains is that there are
My understanding from discussing with the TLS chairs is that they will
separately seek to have the existing drafts containing Kyber code points
updated to also include new code points for ML-KEM hybrids.
Douglas
> On Aug 13, 2024, at 5:37 PM, Andrei Popov
> wrote:
>
> I think it would make
Yes, there are backwards-incompatible changes including domain-separating
key material by parameter set.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, 10:07 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>
> I think it would make sense to get new code points for hybrids based on
> the final ML-KEM spec, so that implemen
Hi Andrei,
We’re working on a codepoint for P256+MLEKM.
--
Kris Kwiatkowski
Cryptography Dev
> On 13 Aug 2024, at 16:37, Andrei Popov
> wrote:
>
> I think it would make sense to get new code points for hybrids based on the
> final ML-KEM spec, so that implementers don’t need to use pre-s
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
I think it would make sense to get new code points for hybrids based on the
final ML-KEM spec, so that implementers don’t need to use pre-standard Kyber.
Has anyone read closely to see if the kybrid/kyber draft would need to change,
other than the name? If not, then we ca
