[TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"

[Daniel Apon <[e-mail]>]

Hi Nico,

The past two posts seem to cast others' actions or opinions under a certain
context/framing that they would likely object to.
E.g. speculating "Perhas[sic] they think" and "that want to XYZ may do so
under coercion"

I don't think it's helpful to the discussion to pigeonhole others' opinions
(especially opinions of a large variety of people representing many
different working groups and many different interests) in such an
undermining manner.

For example, my basic opinion is that (i) hybrid should be standardized (it
is!) and (ii) pure-mlkem should be standardized as well (the topic of
discussion), and nodes on the Internet should be free to negotiate which
protocol they use under their own policies (refusing these connections,
accepting those, etc.). However, I would take exception to my perspective
being characterized by either of the two motivations you expressed.

Kind regards,
--Daniel

On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 5:32 PM Nico Williams <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 07:54:44PM +0000, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
> wrote:
> > For how much longer will the opponents of non-hybrid (because the
> > other side has nothing against hybrids — they simply want the freedom
> > to exercise other options, based on their educated conclusion) beat
> > this dead horse?
>
> The issue, I think, is that some of "the other side" that want to
> "exercise other options" may do so under coercion, but then, us not
> publishing the RFC does not alter that they will continue to so be.
>
> Nico
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>