Nit: we have two HPKE IDs registered. (X25519Kyber768Draft00 at KEM id 0x0030 and X-Wing at 0x647a).
Otherwise I agree with Eric and Rich. Best, Bas On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 2:15 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > Unlike TLS itself defines cipher suites, ECH just depends on the HPKE > registry from RFC 9180 ( > https://www.iana.org/assignments/hpke/hpke.xhtml#hpke-aead-ids). While > there aren't currently any PQ-safe HPKE IDs registered, we do have > proposals for them ( > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-connolly-cfrg-hpke-mlkem-04.html) > and when one is registered, ECH should "just work", so I don't think there > probably is an action here for ECH. > > -Ekr > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 1:48 AM Gianpaolo Angelo Scalone, Vodafone > <Gianpaolo-Angelo.Scalone=40vodafone....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> Hi, not sure if this has to go under ECH or under DNS SVCB/HTTPS RR, but >> given current status ECH will provide E2E privacy today , but is not >> Quantum Safe. >> >> Would it make sense to have a specific section on making ECH quantum safe >> and provide privacy also in perspective? >> >> C2 General >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
