On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 08:07:49AM +0400, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
> I share the same view as Martin. I also support adoption but we should
> be very careful proceeding forward.
It seems fair to assume at this point that even if/when adopted the
"Recommended" status will be "N". That aside, t
Thank you for your clarification Eric. I concur with your approach.StewartOn 19 Mar 2025, at 21:22, Eric Rescorla wrote:Stewart,Thanks for your review.I have changed all but the last point, which I believe is correct as-is.The final issue asked if we should replace the reference to RFC 5077to RFC
We are continuing with our pre-announced tranche of WG adoption calls; see [0]
for more information. This time we are issuing a WG adoption call for the
ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3 I-D [1]. If you support adoption
and are willing to review and contribute text, please send a mes
We already had an extensive discussion on this topic, including a consensus
call,
and I don't believe that this matches the conclusion of this call.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/1brhJ5dtxCp1-xYPiKV8tg2uT7k/
Substantively, I am in favor of making a general requirement against reuse
fo
I support adoption of the draft.
-Tiru
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 18:29, Sean Turner wrote:
> We are continuing with our pre-announced tranche of WG adoption calls; see
> [0] for more information. This time we are issuing a WG adoption call for
> the ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3 I-D
Dear Yoav Nir (cc: tls WG, tls-reg-review mailing list),
Following up on this; as a designated expert for the TLS ExtensionType Values
registry, can you review the proposed registration in draft-ietf-tls-esni-23
for us? Please note that Nick Sullivan is a co-author for this draft and that
Rich
Hi! It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working group
item. Couple of things to note:
1. Authors, please submit the draft named as: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem
2. Authors, please make no changes other than the boilerplate, e.g., name,
dates to the -00 WG version
3. WG: We wi
I support adoption of this document.
Cheers,
Thom
PQ-enthousiast
Op di 1 apr 2025 om 14:59 schreef Sean Turner :
> We are continuing with our pre-announced tranche of WG adoption calls; see
> [0] for more information. This time we are issuing a WG adoption call for
> the ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025, at 02:37, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 1. Getting PQ resistance for free even with non-PQ PAKEs.
> 2. Reducing the combinatoric explosion of "groups"
I don't know that you are really getting PQ resistance if your PAKE remains
vulnerable. You might maintain confidentiality for tha
Opposing adoption to force the document to be published in a way that can't be
"Recommended: Y" feels like (unnecessarily) meta-gaming the IETF process.
I am not aware of any of those opposed who are doing it for this reason.
Perhaps speculating on their reasons isn’t a good thing to do?
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
