[lamps] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-lamps-kyber-certificates-09.txt

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

(Resend with typo corrected)

Dan:

As WG Chair, I have already stated that this document is not specifying a mandatory to implement algorithm.

As WG Chair, I have explicitly asked whether the possible IPR related to ML-KEM is a concern.  You are the only one to voice a concern.  Others explicitly stated the lack of concern.

Thus, BCP 79 does not provide a reason to keep this document from progressing to the IESG.

For the LAMPS WG Chairs,
Russ


> On Apr 16, 2025, at 12:29 PM, D. J. Bernstein <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Sean Turner writes:
>> Hi! I believe this version addresses all of WGLC comments.
> 
> No, the draft still doesn't address various objections summarized here:
> 
>   https://cr.yp.to/2025/bcp-79-issues.html
> 
> That page is structured to show the structure of arguments and
> counterarguments, making visible exactly which objections haven't been
> answered. Here's where the objections were stated in response to WGLC:
> 
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/BTi8HqpFVpp_jv8keqr7cH5FfrE/
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/zaRuZPUFmwg94y4FLgaib501CkI/
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/U5pf3tPaBsmY4sth36bJg9gpGL4/
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/zxNXERu9umB907mt_1OAfIvxB7o/
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/PM4gQ_yOgiQZct5LIqhyGhqF7dY/
>   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/CmQLOuZxKHthamUuruNPcn95YQI/
> 
> I think the bcp-79-issues page captures everything, and it's certainly
> in an easier-to-use format than the email archives; happy to add any
> points that I've missed.
> 
> ---D. J. Bernstein

_______________________________________________
Spasm mailing list -- [e-mail]
To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]