[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 16/04/2025 00:02, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 
> I can see a case being made that this draft does improve the deployability of
> TLS if we start with a baseline of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem and note that
> that mechanism is not deployable in some environments (I guess, ones with some
> kind of strict FIPS-only requirement, though I'm not conversant in the details
> of such an environment).

A question (not necessarily for Ben): Are there any concrete/specific
environments that we know about that will need non-hybrid PQ KEMs for
reasons other than national regulatory reasons?

If so, I'd like to understand more about why and don't (or have
forgotten:-).

If not, then a) adoption of this draft really does require us to
figure out what we'll do when the next country's choices are
proposed, (which we've not) and b) I think does argue for pushing
this to the ISE rather than adopting.

Cheers,
S.