Hello, The X25519MLKEM768 scheme defined in the document is a concatenation of MLKEM768 and X25519, why is it not named MLKEM768X25519 instead?
For SecP256r1MLKEM768, the naming makes sense since it's a concatenation of P256 and MLKEM768. Apologies if this has already been asked before. Cheers, CJ -- PQ Solutions Limited (trading as ‘Post-Quantum’) is a private limited company incorporated in England and Wales with registered number 06808505. This email is meant only for the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error by return email and please delete this message from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. For more information about Post-Quantum, please visit www.post-quantum.com <http://www.post-quantum.com>. In the course of our business relationship, we may collect, store and transfer information about you. Please see our privacy notice at www.post-quantum.com/privacy-policy/ <http://www.post-quantum.com/privacy-policy/> to learn about how we use this information.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
