I don't support adoption. It is not clear to me what an RFC for a ciphersuite is supposed to signal. To the extent it indicates this solution is prefered, the fact that SLH-DSA is a very awkward fit for server auth makes me think we should say no.
Sincerely, Watson Ladd On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 6:28 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > We are continuing with our WG adoption calls for the following I-D: Use of > SLH-DSA in TLS 1.3 [1]; see [2] for more information about this tranche of > adoption calls. If you support adoption and are willing to review and > contribute text, please send a message to the list. If you do not support > adoption of this draft, please send a message to the list and indicate why. > This call will close at 2359 UTC on 30 May 2025. > > Reminder: This call for adoption has nothing to do with picking the > mandatory-to-implement cipher suites in TLS. > > Cheers, > Joe and Sean > > [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-tls-slhdsa/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/KMOTm_lE5OIAKG8_chDlRKuav7c/ > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
