[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for Post-Quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 26 February 2025 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
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 5EF6B23286C for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:19:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietfa.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietfa.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wjm40ePqxfN1 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2242C232855 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:19:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fc6272259cso445439a91.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:19:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1740601145; x=1741205945; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Yxk/46cfZ9fUEzL2MzHvC/lyC/Lc5NqEUhJ2FyvrX34=; b=mJU10kcVIzO/CBrXvvq0W+uovEjm8UuigG6wa8sHxpewrnZYQTqFR4y5cMGj+xjm2H +/iqdW7a+Omy1vhGABQqoM7OnJfhX4SEiB+0mBLvs76SBywpLKFStp6tT6qx4XVPCH8R sXJYE32kttS1LEtzfaKRXW5mRV4cMmsL8sqgBvjAHcqi0Gc5k/AjIABboky9ariNW8HX /55Ty0GJN7IYUtCPsSkZ4Mo934wqbJokBUBE2yowwDuLK9gHPFrPYqJWl/ji7m6IPEDI HsrohFY0RAm1mL55U/JnwPkFZNWDsrJw/o8NP1C8mV32c4gugoxF3mlzCF5fgBS+Nm5u 1ssQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1740601145; x=1741205945; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Yxk/46cfZ9fUEzL2MzHvC/lyC/Lc5NqEUhJ2FyvrX34=; b=B1in7RZCmJc3VgzOA+q0+rfT1XEk9jeyIKknIta9r1cUmnSgxM2p3I7y2CWU3rJadX qQpRAdAOpd0SujsYd6Et9XHMFJQKWNVLyleWYnyCZW9XtROq+wKkbvlWogx6ZzcPXU83 0y4V4w5L0538zCbPvPVNYU09glvB+czOgum1OyICG3GCmD34kIAAzSL4i6tnv9yZeyUA g66mrhN6MZHQaypC2RUzvRK2FTFW4iv9//53EUQn53sANSOJfC6rVc33zFKxsuzCaChL s2ySw2GW17tGMqsglWbCLr10+cXC4bWJHOSeQqsKEFj2sMdfs85I3U2kLcNPjvK6joNA fdmg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU8s5dDFJLysaLEhOKZ1Qe3C1u2HDw4bdOHeHmFZFizA2zQIp8fzX9OC+yZ6e2E25iZ7E8=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzJ99+lTWpNWaNFCgq04jcmlVDhXnNeGJzfyibs4rJWj575BhYF 7Wz6eEYE/6TlDbYjYzEdbh2M0Bn7aeSc69+gEXZWNvkC8kuakwuRNoteHhBLF/mzYBX1oYri5iX 7sAC96T9HMRNF/L4EnoZhVSx1EPpa/Q==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsssbxJ+HEcnNVGjzcOLgPbGs+Mvj1HFLCvHOtA6XB0eFdzc1SKmJHsbP2jt5y NH+jhup9rTzZ2OQsxKMHaVRsNnajh/JhwCD2jYLhyD3y0RI4lpRreuYuu8Au3qaEBk15aD17D3/ PT4A/oxk0rtSv9m2WlLVLwJNGAqg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEVBrIkoMqCMLfRulwNdt+z8ow6sCI9o3YcEsFFxW3cxFtqb6mgt9XM6kgweWwDmdgAVneDdfhRqPMPXMeFr2A=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:5202:b0:2f9:9ddd:689b with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2fe68cf4826mr11683431a91.22.1740601145055; Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:19:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <68EDF12D-1C97-4823-AFFE-19BF261D7034@sn3rd.com> <E0D776C8-FD56-4D0B-BDC1-3AB88A8CEE88@heapingbits.net>
In-Reply-To: <E0D776C8-FD56-4D0B-BDC1-3AB88A8CEE88@heapingbits.net>
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:18:53 -0800
X-Gm-Features: AQ5f1Jr8BUJ7ukG8sArnDp-xHnSiQ-hjZve89v0JVv-jPTLdB5uwPN7cH8axrpI
Message-ID: <CAChr6Syu5vf22TfhBO7E4ypDPPQJTVW7U1G-D2y0-7bH3heMiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f26030062f11484f"
Message-ID-Hash: 5WT5TOB7ITB2HKMRHQVQVX2GIVP7DQHX
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5WT5TOB7ITB2HKMRHQVQVX2GIVP7DQHX
X-MailFrom: sayrer@gmail.com
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: "TLS@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for Post-Quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3
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/IMmX5eC8aOIKuhTrz1PqR8tzjXE>
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>

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:43 AM Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
wrote:

> As I understand it, the purpose of this draft is to specify an
> interoperable key exchange mechanism that we can deploy. The draft already
> has code points allocated to it, and they exist in the registry
> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-8>,
> so I wonder: what is the point of adopting this draft when the important
> work is already done? If it’s that some folks won’t implement it until
> there’s an RFC number assigned to it, well, that’s pretty silly.
>

It is silly. But the nature of the issue is that people that do implement
it can put "RFC NNNN support" on their comparison checklists. So, it's more
effective than the code points, especially if we want to encourage smaller
implementations to implement.


> I support adoption if it helps this work get implemented more broadly, but
> I think it’s worth asking whether or not this is a good use of an already
> busy working group’s time.
>

 I think it will help the work get implemented more broadly, so I support
adoption.

thanks,
Rob