The codepoint has already been registered, 26 in the
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml
If you proceed with Peter’s draft, he might need to tweak the wording to say he
got in before the barn door closed :)
_
I agree that ecdhe-mlkem should advance now. At the same time, “pure” mlkem should advance - because there’s no way the main “contentious point” of “hybrid vs pure” would be resolved. —Regards,UriSecure Resilient Systems and TechnologiesMIT Lincoln LaboratoryOn Dec 23, 2024, at 16:29, Rob Sayre wr
Rich,
Keep in mind, draft-gutmann-tls-lts is under consideration as an
independent submission right now. If it's not the intent of the IETF to
create a conflict with regard to that draft, then my suggestion is a
statement in Section 1 along the following lines:
“The policy specified in this
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 12:16 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> Rich,
>
> Keep in mind, draft-gutmann-tls-lts is under consideration as an
> independent submission right now. If it's not the intent of the IETF to
> create a conflict with regard to that draft, then my suggestion is a
> statement in Section
I think we should do an adoption call for:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement/
Key establishment is the most urgent need and I think the WG has a clear
appreciation of the implication of adopting th
On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 10:55 AM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I think we should do an adoption call for:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design/
>
Oops. I meant:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-conn
I would humbly disagree. I believe this working group has enough bandwidth to
handle a couple of postquantum drafts (along with all the other drafts the WG
is working on). I believe that this is especially true because we pretty much
agree on the contents – what we have disagreements about is
