[TLS] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement

2024-12-10 Thread Jay Daley
G issues an RFC requiring all PQ in TLS to > be hybrid"; I haven't seen a counterargument. > > Now the WG is again being told, again without a rationale, that some > unspecified cryptographic experts with money are demanding non-hybrids. > Ev

[TLS] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement

2024-12-12 Thread Jay Daley
in due course from the WG chairs that explains that further and addresses the rest of your points. Jay -- Jay Daley IETF Executive Director exec-direc...@ietf.org ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org

[TLS] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement

2024-12-12 Thread Jay Daley
> On 13 Dec 2024, at 09:43, Jay Daley wrote: > > Hi Daniel > >> On 13 Dec 2024, at 06:28, D. J. Bernstein wrote: >> >> RFC 9680 coauthor writes: >>> If, on the other hand, your concern is that there has been a failure >>> of IETF proces

[TLS] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement

2024-12-12 Thread Jay Daley
Hi Daniel > On 13 Dec 2024, at 13:49, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > > Jay Daley writes: >> I took your note to me as invoking the escalation path that RFC 9680 >> provides information on and consulted with counsel and the response >> is, as previously conveyed, that your