On 17.02.26 17:02, Paul Wouters wrote:
I was asked by a TLS participant to relay some information publiclyregarding their pure PQ mlkem use case. I have rephrased their ontributionin my own words below.
Several issues with such anonymous inputs. I'll say just one:How can we assure that what you rephrase here is the actual intention of that individual? Reminds me of the time of RFC8773bis when one FATT member wrote "Tamarin-like" and chairs relayed it over as just "Tamarin" to us, completely changing the actual intention of the FATT member. That FATT member later on told me that "Tamarin" was not the intention, and ProVerif was equally acceptable.
I have no idea of this trading thingy but independent of the technical argument, I think someone who is not saying it himself/herself on the list and not publicly committing to implement it is very unlikely to implement it, even if it becomes a standard.[...] then this individual would have a strongcase to deploy PQ security.
The individual stated they are in favour of adoption the pure mlkem document along with the hybrid document so people can pick either, depending in their use cases.
Could you ask that individual to share a compelling use case/need for pure MLKEM?
Moreover, that individual is reading more than 3-months old version of the draft (the latest is -07). Seems like very inactive member of WG.
-Usama
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
