+1 for adoption, and not commenting on the silliness of the counterargument brought up here, because it is silly.
I do not see a security concern with having the option for pure ML-KEM in TLS. TLS has ways of negotiating algorithms, if one side believes ML-KEM to be insufficiently secure, they can negotiate 0x11EC (which equally should be adopted). On Thu, Dec 12, 2024 at 2:11 PM Filippo Valsorda <fili...@ml.filippo.io> wrote: > 2024-12-07 03:19 GMT+01:00 D. J. Bernstein <d...@cr.yp.to>: > > Having a company influencing IETF decisions by making claims about what > customers are demanding---with no explanation of _why_ those demands are > being made, and no opportunity for IETF review of the merits of those > rationales---is exposing IETF to antitrust litigation. > > > hahahahahahahahahahahaha > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org > -- Sophie Schmieg | Information Security Engineer | ISE Crypto | sschm...@google.com
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
