IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2026-02-27)

David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu> Thu, 26 February 2026 02:10 UTC

Return-Path: <davadria@umich.edu>
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 31F6CBE5EA1D for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:10:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 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_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 uOHTFMQCGaFU for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:10:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yurei.relay-egress.a.mail.umich.edu (yurei.relay-egress.a.mail.umich.edu [18.216.144.57]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F407ABE5EA16 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from chirpy-tupilaq.authn-relay.a.mail.umich.edu (ip-10-0-74-139.us-east-2.compute.internal [10.0.74.139]) by yurei.relay-egress.a.mail.umich.edu with ESMTPS id 699FAB93.2327C767.2C4199F2.1526143; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 21:10:27 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=relay-0; t=1772071827; bh=OMH3yS34PtKvsy9Emw2Ob0QbBV6qI6D40rPVmzyHvIg=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=V47gh41g/ZjzCX8KT71EILyGzgniizwnxW+W8PXECwMn178LUfEyRbgCngzZ6hdxv CaehoJ1VxUziC089mlSUTWZZjJ/jNXzDkcZWdcn2ZigrMpxEzFOm6KdT/mbTXejzyM YimXh2V8O5AXWAJJhQhm/cpxwVRmrBqUHal5GPRLWcU+A3XwFo8XAjEMxt0+K9nCmj WXgDGSTTWw6yfwyvi80YPhETJyEGjdZfd+69xNaT2G7lem4iqgh/oYt6/BJP540YP+ IdBNTTXHgZGsmxWae5kRoPFbgpKZeLSTh6IxZL1aMzfNV6oJWvDXAwdhE+sg8zqVVx TuIDhDk6DfR9A==
Authentication-Results: chirpy-tupilaq.authn-relay.a.mail.umich.edu; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.85.167.42 (mail-lf1-f42.google.com); auth=pass smtp.auth=davadria
Received: from mail-lf1-f42.google.com (mail-lf1-f42.google.com [209.85.167.42]) by chirpy-tupilaq.authn-relay.a.mail.umich.edu with ESMTPSA id 699FAB92.314D26E2.7997FD86.1118617; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 21:10:27 -0500
Received: by mail-lf1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-59e60b3ccdfso388168e87.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:10:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUJGUOj/GsHAyavyZIJddscFnplNSL3engQlWh5qgmklG3R6LkKJclHbZ6KGiZ2S5SHA0k=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxPQnR+lkn7QOhVPebHmcaXX8BdVWdEoqqQQrBoXJ5u/jWlXf3K +JKzr8baWMDlMMs+SsdD9qK5FNqpC4Y8/xjOF6yO3PeMRVN7iNG1lgGQ7r86On9f6QacwypwizO VDAvC4wufqyvNTkRUEG6hKQsDKmqtx2c=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3056:b0:59f:6db3:1526 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5a105d8ace9mr915181e87.10.1772071825144; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 18:10:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <baaf3c921e4e4a8084842f64526eab2a@ec.europa.eu> <BN0P110MB1419EE6148D4AED8329E1CCC9075A@BN0P110MB1419.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAChr6SyTSyB=n185=5j-yeZ1-bqZT6FLmQVii-1P-v4ndp0gSg@mail.gmail.com> <BN0P110MB141984CF52D19C5E858AD80E9075A@BN0P110MB1419.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAChr6SxxvvoZzgO_b3qc8u=cEYmpi91nFmf-a5DVSoaL2EH2Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFR824w_8keJpB5F-07+K+yU7sU=soOyqi-Cpr_PyaFY5WAzxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SyZrrnDm=moMwB+zSrqzr7N4cK-Zekv1JsrWKshWFs+4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAFR824w6A_vfNB2L7Ux8C8QX7paF0c2yS0YMBS0XWFooiLJGXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFR824ysmMLc5BtDM0_wYcoNREU5rTbLz8rLf0fJ2o-17kcMvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACf5n7-0fyMxoVWaVvDxH-efv2N=2SmzGtL5w1KLE4-qvU_y7g@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxUVKi9o5zW6ez=MTRfd7qFNZC1xnHz20EjUbC-S7dF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxUVKi9o5zW6ez=MTRfd7qFNZC1xnHz20EjUbC-S7dF1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:10:14 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACf5n7-L4=AzGB60KNtn6Y_8GOLgRLJPd5OeMR_BURH6CrApAg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Gm-Features: AaiRm53VflH1zIOvTKTeRX1jhTrGz5BLYHvcLF1aq1knTerLaQjfeK-f1fRh0nE
Message-ID: <CACf5n7-L4=AzGB60KNtn6Y_8GOLgRLJPd5OeMR_BURH6CrApAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a782ae064bb09f98"
Message-ID-Hash: OGH5CGZTNXTZXG7Q7T7UMBP4EGE3T4WK
X-Message-ID-Hash: OGH5CGZTNXTZXG7Q7T7UMBP4EGE3T4WK
X-MailFrom: davadria@umich.edu
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: DA PIEVE Fabiana <Fabiana.DA-PIEVE=40ec.europa.eu@dmarc.ietf.org>, "TLS@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2026-02-27)
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/FEdkFSj4wXUK1_cBILiidqw0SsE>
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>

Because the IETF has a monopoly on TLS, but if the IETF continues to grind
its reputation into a pulp, perhaps we’ll be so lucky as to be able to
ignore it in the future.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 7:04 PM Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 25, 2026 at 5:59 PM David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>> > No one trusts NIST.
>>
>> I trust NIST to run algorithm competitions.
>>
>
> Then why wouldn't a NIST reference and a code point suffice?
>
> thank,
> Rob
>

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