During a LAMPS discussion of another ML-KEM draft, I started tracking
two BCP 79 compliance issues triggered by the patent situation, with a
structured presentation of the arguments and counterarguments:
https://cr.yp.to/2025/bcp-79-issues.html
As far as I can see, the same considerations apply to this TLS draft.
The easy way to resolve the first issue is the "modify draft to allow
alternatives to Kyber" fix, which can be applied after adoption, so it's
not an argument against adoption.
However, the second issue can't be similarly deferred if change control
has to be transferred by adoption time---which is my understanding of
how IETF operates. BCP 79 doesn't make this schedule clear, but RFC 7221
says "Remind current draft owners that they are transferring change
control for the document to the IETF".
---D. J. Bernstein
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
