On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 6:42 PM Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 09:22:30PM +0100, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > > I think it's a +1 if i recommend to not explicitly mention the ISE > > track option, because the ISE is really VERY independent, and i don't > > think that the random crypto algo/use-case would suit the ISE track. > > So it's NOT a generic fallback option IMHO that we should enlist in > > the doc if it should go forward. > > Nevertheless, the ISE published RFC8998. If for some reason, we > collectively decide that non-hybrid MLKEM is so unpalatable that > even standards-track + Recommended=N is unacceptable, then I see > no reason why the ISE route would not be an option. > Standards track is not on the table. This document is up for Informational. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
