> That does speak to this draft though: the supposed justification for > avoiding hybrid KEMs doesn't stack up and seems to originate from > sigint agencies - that's just a smelly combination.
The arguments against hybrids have been articulated by multiple people on this list, including myself [1]. Despite public accusations [2], I do not actually work for an intelligence agency. [1]: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4KsD5rbv0xYhcin78CgtWuzdYLA/ [2]: https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251123-corruption.html On Sat, Feb 14, 2026 at 11:29 AM Paul Wouters <paul= [email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Feb 2026, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > [ AD clarification ] > > > Finally, I worry that due process is not followed since relevant > > contributors are prohibited from participating, which subjugate others > > to not feel at liberty of expressing similar opinions, resulting in a > > non-transparent process that invite questions if this can be considered > > a fair and open process. > > No one has been prohibited from participation. The one individual you > are most likely referring to has their posts go through moderation first > to see if a bogus legal claim is present in the form of an incompatible > derivative clause. They are welcome to post substantive feedback without > such a bogus claim, similar to how everyone else follows the IETF > participation rules as references by our Note Well, and the moderators > will pass those messages to the list. > > There was one individual who copied this behaviour of derivative clause, > and that was you Simon. You seem not to have been subjugated from giving > us your feedback and you simply (and correctly) stopped adding custom > derivative clauses that go against the IETF processes. > > If anyone feels they cannot express their views on the public list, > the next best thing you can do is share your view with either the IESG > as a whole or with the the TLS WG Chairs and AD, provided of course, > that those off-list messages also do not contain derivative clauses. > > Individuals that have reached out to chairs and AD that are uncomforable > speaking out, have so far all done so because they are afraid of the > hostile and repetitive interactions and accusations of being malicious > by said contributor. That is, I see the exact opposite of what you are > worried about. > > Paul > > > > > /Simon > > > > Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> This message starts the second Working Group Last Call for the pure > ML-KEM > >> document (draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07). > >> > >> > >> The file can be retrieved from: > >> > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/ > >> > >> The diff with the previous WGLC draft (-05) is here: > >> > >> > >> > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07&difftype=--html > >> < > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-06&difftype=--html > > > >> > >> > >> The main focus of this WGLC is to review new text providing more context > >> around the use of pure ML-KEM. For those who indicated they wanted this > >> text, please let us know if the new text satisfies you and if you > support > >> publication. This working group last call will end on February 27, 2026. > >> > >> > >> Thank You. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
