On Sun, Dec 15, 2024 at 12:13 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> > Hiya, > > Answering a few points at once: > > On 15/12/2024 17:05, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I don't think it's a good use of the WG's time to put out this kind > > of guidance statement. Rather, we should simply adopt some subset of > > the proposed drafts. The Recommended column in the code point > > registry serves as the TLS WG's recommendation. > > I don't think that mechanism is quite sufficient here, for at > least two reasons: > > 1) if we e.g. add recommended=y for X25519MLKEM768, that'd mean > we now have 5 such groups all with recommended=y so we're still > missing guidance required amongst those which becomes a thing we > do care about whereas we more or less didn't when we only had 4. > > 2) if someone can do X25519MLKEM768, then they can also do > MLKEM768 which (let's assume) remains recommended=n, so we ought > give such folks guidance to not turn that on (if we end up with > consensus to say that). > I don't agree with either of these points. We already have MTI and Recommended=Y, which are sufficient to (1) provide interop and (2) to indicate what the TLS WG thinks is safe. I don't think it's helpful for us to try to make ever finer-distinctions of either Recommended=Y or Recommended=N. Moreover, as the discussion so far shows, trying to draw these distinctions has a high risk of being an attractive nuisance. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
