[TLS] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email-00.txt

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 24/02/2026 09:15, Bellebaum, Thomas wrote:
> Hi Nadim,
> 
>>> 1. Make ECHDE/MLKEM Recommended=Y (as also suggested by Bas's draft).
>>> 2. Decline to publish draft-ietf-tls-mlkem
>>
>> This is the best case scenario outcome for TLS’s security and benefit to humanity in my view and I strongly support it.
> 
> I agree. The medium-term (i.e. after WGLC) question regarding 2. would be whether that draft
> 
> a) should be sent to the ISE for publication elsewhere (which in case of no conflicts any author may do without WG approval), or

Note that the above phrasing could be misleading - authors *ask* the ISE
for publication, and the ISE can also decline to publish, for basically
whatever reason the ISE decides. (The "I" does mean independent:-) The
ISE can also decide to only publish if some ISE-chosen caveats are added
to a document. Or the ISE might conclude that the fact that the WG has
decided to not publish such RFCs means that it'd be too close to a
conflict with the IETF stream for the ISE to publish 'em instead.

The point is that if Richard's plan were adopted, one can't assume that
TLS codepoint RFCs, not adopted by the WG, would instead be emitted by
the ISE.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I'm not arguing for or against Richard's plan in the above.

> b) should be held at the WG for eventual reevaluation/publication in a few years.
> 
> Personally, I think we have seen enough interest in deploying this particular PQ-no-seatbelt algorithm to prefer b) and expand the considerations in the document in the meantime.
> 
> -- TBB
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]