On 23.02.26 22:20, Nico Williams wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 09:20:31AM +0100, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:Since this draft clearly seems to be controversial, I am still failing to see why chairs are not asking for expert review of FATT to resolve the matter. So, I once again request the chairs to initiate FATT process. Maybe chairs can collect all related analysis and send these pointers along with the request.The controversy has to do with the cryptanalytic strength of PQ-only KEMs and not much else. No formal analysis tools can address that question! Insisting on that in that context is a category error.
Well, not necessarily. This may possibly be your misunderstanding of the scope of FATT. Please see the FATT process statement [0] which is */_very_/* explicit about it:
the 'formal' is not limited to formal methods but to formal security modeling generally.IIRC Britta Hale (member of FATT) has clarified on mic in TLS meetings that the scope of FATT is not just /symbolic/ security analysis.FATT members do have expertise in cryptanalysis and they seem to be the right people to take advice to solve this matter. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not sure what a formal analysis could possibly say about the use of one KEM or key agreement protocol or another. Formal analysis can only detect errors in how a KEM/KA is integrated into TLS 1.3, and that is not what's at issue here.
Ditto as aboveIndependent of the scope, my main point still holds, namely that the FATT process seems to have been violated. If chairs believed this was out of scope, they still ought to "inform the working group of this decision" after adoption, as per FATT process [1]. Please point me to that information email.
Thanks. -Usama[0] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt?tab=readme-ov-file#fatt-process-overview
[1] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt?tab=readme-ov-file#document-adoption
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
