All we have for PQC right now is some individual I-Ds using "not recommended" IANA code points. We must have PQC RFCs for TLS and the first step is WG adoption.
Cheers, Andrei -----Original Message----- From: Jan Schaumann <jschauma=40netmeister....@dmarc.ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 1:07 PM To: tls@ietf.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for Post-Quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3 [You don't often get email from jschauma=40netmeister....@dmarc.ietf.org. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Christopher Wood <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote: > I wonder: what is the point of adopting this draft when the important work is > already done? If it's that some folks won't implement it until there's an RFC > number assigned to it, well, that's pretty silly. It may seem silly to all folks who are directly involved here in these discussions, but many software and service providers view a "draft" as immature, not final, subject to change and may not implement until it has an RFC number. For those who are not actively tracking developments in the IETF and standards communities and who are relying on formal publications, this is an important signal. Likewise, for customers of such providers it's a lot easier to inquire "do you implement RFCXXXX" or, for interoperation, to request compliance with an RFC than with a "draft". With that, I support adoption. -Jan _______________________________________________ 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
