<!--- Responding to my own message here that started the thread. --->
Hi! The chairs gathered a lot of information from this thread. Thanks for that.
We have also noted PQ-related discussions in other WGs. Based on all of this,
Joe and I [0] are going to begin to issue WG calls for adoption in this order
one roughly right after the after:
- draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kwiatkowski-tls-ecdhe-mlkem/>-
draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement/>-
draft-tls-westerbaan-mldsa
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tls-westerbaan-mldsa-00>-
draft-reddy-tls-slhdsa
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-tls-slhdsa/>-
draft-reddy-tls-composite-mldsa
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-tls-composite-mldsa/>This is our
plan for a couple of reasons:
1. “Harvest now, decrypt later” seems to be the pressing need
2. Community support
3. Not wanting to moderate all the discussions (**cough fights**) all at once
A couple of things worth noting:
1. Individual I-Ds are a starting point; the I-D does not need to be perfect
before it is adopted
2. Working I-Ds are under change control of the WG
3. These I-Ds specify code points (some are already assigned), but they do not
specify mandatory-to-implement algorithms for TLS; see rfc8446/-rfc8446bis
4. Let’s keep it civil while we proceed
Stay tuned.
Cheers,
Joe and Sean
[0] In case you are wondering why we are not including Deirdre here, Deirdre
has one of the I-Ds under discussion.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
