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

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

Hi Viktor,

On 06.04.26 15:35, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 03:11:23PM +0200, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:
>
>> Also, as a counter-argument to my position, can someone kindly show me
>> that pure ML-KEM is /more/ secure than hybrid in the context of TLS
>> protocol? Thank you.
> 65536-bit RSA is "more secure" than 2048-bit RSA, is that a compelling
> argument to never use 2048-bit RSA, and always use 65536-bit RSA?
This is comparing small apples and big apples whereas the comparison 
under discussion is "apples concatenated with oranges" vs. "oranges only".
> Any choice of cryptographic parameters is ultimately a tradeoff.
>
> Admittedly, in this case hybrids mitigate additional risks without being
> unduly impractical, but not everyone sees those risks in quite the same
> light.  I agree that hybrids are prudent, and would like to see that
> point clearly stated in the pure ML-KEM draft,
Sure, hence my request [0]. Thanks for support.
>   but I very much don't
> think standing in the way publication is sensible.

Already clarified to sufficient detail in [1], so needless to repeat.

Best regards,

-Usama


[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/oiVmp3PCo9H6aiugPQ8aVFztvVg/

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/q4nNjdrGrJv-4s1JYVHz41WJ2Go/