+1 for adoption
While I'm stronly against wide deployment of pure ML-KEM at this moment in
time, I'm very much in favour of adoption of this document, having
stable definitions for such codepoints, even if they will get doployed only
in closed networks is still useful.
On Thursday, 5 December 2024 22:08:45 CET, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) wrote:
How do we proceed with this draft?
This draft is quite boring (which is good from a
cryptographical perspective); it just says ‘take ML-KEM and
insert it as a key agreement into TLS in the obvious way’.
I understand that people want to discuss the hybrid KEM draft
more (because there are more options there) – can we at least
get the less controversial part done?
--
Regards,
Alicja (nee Hubert) Kario
Principal Quality Engineer, RHEL Crypto team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00, Brno, Czech Republic
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
