IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de> Thu, 02 April 2026 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67025D5B31A7 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2026 12:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775158070; bh=Q64pcPv3Qep0YDrgiqomkn7uMxXXMGShrz7OIc4ClBY=; h=Date:Subject:To:CC:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=U9/7Ii7jwB2JAPzZduEu3kHHrj0rYc62WCneoVQqmO08ROSIqG0Pm+RKh4Vkae7Cx 1zHo6mJTPHtjX7KeOJHDkqVIaaGDi02lIDruYI6cnSlFoJwDb9B6ho4y/h+Vdr+wa6 OqCsUb28ng8BKKuJwyXWjkTvy174c8/Cx3D+1YCQ=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tu-dresden.de
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qf8eh-lBlF_m for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2026 12:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout7.zih.tu-dresden.de (mailout7.zih.tu-dresden.de [141.76.32.220]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61021D5B319D for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Apr 2026 12:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tu-dresden.de; s=dkim2022; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:CC:To :Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=hZmDSJjRwyc/k83l35RBxecgt/GjtKRwBLnqU+WdHM0=; b=LGhQgYXhxrPpSq0ToIfm1NJRLO 2wqZWzUcgqklWeQEVeZ25B3Bh6ai4tVIMgXd/0d0tGAL7GijKmK0ZFvGe53M1z1hAmckgGXn57KTR qmlow9E33G3YSYH9kYxP6Cx2GZ7CJ2cq0MZ1Z14dSHBHShJU33VY+dTf10Jnjmp08KFKtHAGQm3sM jc9W8coeDU7MRi4eHwarJGPH09VbpwOY8yhCWlRrF6TpKVxuX2orNOCDWpNmlHQ8Afd1HgMxsZ5OE YgN2OALljbX1VVqMVCQnU7VxZvJF2aVNyc0sP4THoMExo+HF9erbvlLPZijjpg2/pg+R3DLySRyYJ SA1att9g==;
Received: from msx-t422.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de ([172.26.35.139] helo=msx.tu-dresden.de) by mailout7.zih.tu-dresden.de with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>) id 1w8Nhd-00AnPt-36; Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:27:46 +0200
Received: from [10.12.5.228] (141.76.13.149) by msx-t422.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.35.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.37; Thu, 2 Apr 2026 21:27:31 +0200
Message-ID: <2efcd86e-c248-4cce-a601-b65e3ee4b5ae@tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2026 21:27:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Robert Stacey <robert.stacey@intel.com>, Peter Yee <peter@akayla.com>
References: <177515578056.110728.11479383677020007340@dt-datatracker-9dc8fdd9f-qcdj9>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>
In-Reply-To: <177515578056.110728.11479383677020007340@dt-datatracker-9dc8fdd9f-qcdj9>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms060406050703040001080907"
X-ClientProxiedBy: MSX-T416.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.35.136) To msx-t422.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.35.139)
X-TUD-Virus-Scanned: mailout7.zih.tu-dresden.de
Message-ID-Hash: DSISWTAMCTLU4NKYVO2CQPD6GYIXNDVA
X-Message-ID-Hash: DSISWTAMCTLU4NKYVO2CQPD6GYIXNDVA
X-MailFrom: muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: Transport Layer Security Discussion List <tls@ietf.org>, Sean Turner <sean+ietf@sn3rd.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/7OGS_X1e-zG8O0eRJPLKdmYcpU8>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

Dear Robert and Peter,

Thank you for sharing IEEE 802.11 WG position.

> The IEEE 802.11 Working Group would like to express support for publication of draft-ietf-tls-mlkem as an RFC with its definition of key establishment options that use pure ML-KEM.

I was actually hoping to see some /technical rationale/ for support of 
publication. The attachment to the LS just repeats the same statement. 
Am I missing something? If not, may I kindly ask if you could possibly 
enlighten us with technical reasons behind this support? In particular, 
has IEEE 802.11 WG done some research, such as cryptanalysis? Pointers 
to the analysis would be very helpful.

Moreover, was the IEEE 802.11 WG aware of this recent draft [0]? In the 
light of this, I am curious if IEEE 802.11 WG still believes there is 
/real need/ for RFC.

Finally, I would like to know if IEEE 802.11 WG position is that this 
RFC should be published independent of recommending hybrids [1]?

Looking forward to more insights.

Thank you!

Best regards,

-Usama

[0] 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email/

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-usama-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-update/

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status