* We should have a consistent ordering of [EC, PQ] in both the names and the key schedule. I.e., the code should be consistent with the naming and either the EC or the PQC ought to always come first.
That would be nice, but it appears that the requirements that some find important (e.g., for me and others, FIPS) might preclude that. * I don't have a strong opinion about which should go first. As I said, I think compliance might force our hand. * Can we please have a separator between them, as in MLKEM768_X25519? Yes please! A consistent cipher *name* is probably a good idea. And the soon-to-be-added Comment field can say “on the wire it’s reversed see RFC xxx” and that RFC could/should explain it.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
