[TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt

Hi Viktor, Thanks for the detail explanation. > Noting the sizes in an order that is different from the wire order is not > IMHO a significant issue, given explicit language defining the wire order > elsewhere, ... though of course switching the order of exposition, just in > case someone mig

[TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt

Hi, I have read this draft and have two questions. 1. X25519MLKEM768 is the concatenation of ML-KEM and X25519. Why SecP256r1MLKEM768/SecP384r1MLKEM1024 use a different order? ML-KEM part comes after the EC share. 2. In Section 3.1.3. Server share: When the SecP256r1MLKEM768 group is negotia

[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3

Hi, I'm opposed to adoption. I share the same concern with Stephen. The conservative hybrid key exchange way should be preferred. Cheers, Shuzhou ___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org