Hi group, I'd like to point out some inconsistencies with the IANA ML-KEM (non-hybrid) TLS Supported Groups<https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-8> codepoint assignments.
First, the reference document for them is [draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement-03<https://www.iana.org/go/draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement-03>], however -03 doesn't specify the same codepoint values as the IANA chart. -05 specifies the correct values. Second, draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement (-03 and -05) is inconsistent with capitalization of the naming, e.g. /* ML-KEM Key Agreement Methods */ mlkem512(0x0200), mlkem768(0x0201), mlkem1024(0x0202) vs Value: 0x0200 Description: MLKEM512 DTLS-OK: Y Recommended: N IANA went with the uppercase naming, while OpenSSL went with lower. Lowercase is generally more consistent with the other IANA codepoints, with some exceptions including the recent hybrids. For what it's worth, the slightly different bikeshed shade that I prefer is lowercase. Regards, Daniel
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
