> Does it mean that both draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design and > draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem should be standard track or only one of > them? draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design depends on pre-standard Kyber and does not matter any more; draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem is completely separate, should include a P384 hybrid, should be standards-track IMHO, and should define "Recommended = Y" code points.
Cheers, Andrei -----Original Message----- From: Kris Kwiatkowski <k...@amongbytes.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 9:47 AM To: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> Cc: John Mattsson <john.mattsson=40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>; Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com>; Bas Westerbaan <bas=40cloudflare....@dmarc.ietf.org>; tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] [EXTERNAL] draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem and P-384 > On 10 Sep 2024, at 16:05, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: > > • 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. > In fact, the current unified draft has IANA instructions to mark the > KyberDraft0 assignments as obsolete. (see version -02 of the draft, section 5.3). > > • 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. > I agree. Can we come to consensus on the mailing list before Dublin, or do > we need time on the agenda there? Does it mean that both draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design and draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem should be standard track or only one of them? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
