On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 04:24:43AM -0500, Deirdre Connolly wrote:
> I am happy to cut down the Motivations to 'nothing', I thought I was
> obligated to say 'something'
Not calling out motivating use-cases in which non-hybrid ML-KEM is to be
preferred, is not the same as saying nothing. There's still the
security considerations section, which can explain the various issues
one needs to take into account before choosing the algorithm.
Users who believe they need the non-hybrid algorithm don't need to
be sold on their use case, but some might take the security
considerations into acount and perhaps consider alternatives.
So I do hope that dropping the "motivations" that soft-sell non-hybrid
use and beefing up the security considerations to warn about the risks
of novel non-hybrid choices might make the document less objectionable
to a sufficient subset of the folks who are objecting to call rough
consensus. If of course such a change would not sway anyone to change
their position, then I guess no point...
So does anyone previously opposed see this as a possible way forward?
--
Viktor. 🇺🇦 Слава Україні!
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
