I assume draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design will remove all mentioning of Kyber and only refer to the final standardized ML-KEM. I don't think TLS WG should publish anything with Kyber.
I think hybrids with ML-KEM should be standard track and Recommended = Y. I think all hybrids of ML-KEM with curves that are Recommended = Y should be Recommended = Y. Cheers, John From: Kris Kwiatkowski <k...@amongbytes.com> Date: Tuesday, 10 September 2024 at 08:09 To: Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> Cc: Bas Westerbaan <bas=40cloudflare....@dmarc.ietf.org>, tls@ietf.org <tls@ietf.org> Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXTERNAL] draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem and P-384 > On 10 Sep 2024, at 00:17, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > This makes sense, however shouldn’t draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-01 be > on the Standards track? > Also, what is the thinking behind “Recommended: N” for the code points? The draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design draft is on the Informational track. I thought it makes sense to keep same standardisation track for draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem. My understanding (according to RFC 8126, section 4.9) is that "Recommended: Y” requires documents to be standardised in Standards or BCP tracks, as we don’t then Recommended is set to N. Hence, that’s the logic behind it. Cheers, Kris _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
