Back to the topic at hand. I think it'd very bad if we'd have a codepoint for pure ML-KEM before we have a codepoint for an ML-KEM hybrid. Process wise, I think that's up to the designated experts of the IANA registry.
Currently the TLS designated experts really only look at the request itself, without larger context: is the ALPN valid, is the requested protocol number available, is the documentation freely available and so on. Section 15 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis/ changes that a bit. So if Deirdre requests a code point right now, we’d probably reject it but that could be appealed somehow. Once the RFC is out, we could then see if there’s WG consensus or if it’s still a work-in-progress, and assign full number or provisional or tell her to use the private range.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
