IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus

Wang Guilin <Wang.Guilin@huawei.com> Sat, 03 October 2026 04:44 UTC

Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 153484B for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 03 Oct 2026 04:44:38 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mx.ietf.org; dkim=pass header.d=huawei.com header.s=dkim header.b=rewSAuNb; spf=pass (mx.ietf.org: domain of Wang.Guilin@huawei.com designates 185.176.79.56 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=Wang.Guilin@huawei.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com
dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=RGWgbpqIH2avMf7gYe+FCHUaQHHxauobovvlajlk8oE=; b=rewSAuNbiuFF9svV7PLyrWRN0OrOQIBOxJxOmNlaBMiQv0ulUJ/YfVjsLXXwixSETPct70YI2 7StdUYzBII/vIw53cO4+hG66ObF4Dlo4AqU98DrWnEQwi5bIcSXcpdDNG6FAM9UIYDEH4Ii/G9p eG3yG2pbLaOSlgCkjaHdLJs=
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.224.83]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4hxY1z4nTCzHnGcW for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Oct 2026 12:43:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100012.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.174.184]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75FAE4057A for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Oct 2026 12:44:23 +0800 (CST)
Received: from sinpeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.188.194.98) by lhrpeml100012.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.184) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.46; Sat, 3 Oct 2026 05:44:22 +0100
Received: from sinpeml500009.china.huawei.com (7.188.194.209) by sinpeml500007.china.huawei.com (7.188.194.98) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.46; Sat, 3 Oct 2026 12:44:20 +0800
Received: from sinpeml500009.china.huawei.com ([7.188.194.209]) by sinpeml500009.china.huawei.com ([7.188.194.209]) with mapi id 15.02.2562.046; Sat, 3 Oct 2026 12:44:20 +0800
From: Wang Guilin <Wang.Guilin@huawei.com>
To: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com>, Damien Miller <djm@mindrot.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus
Thread-Index: AQHdUg1XMVi6jj64ckOBXgKYepaWfLbqPTiAgAECY3Q=
Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2026 04:44:20 +0000
Message-ID: 9AC6C775-1A0D-4B90-8410-2E5660829F63
References: <A383CF85-CF66-4A3D-AFBC-3F2CCFEE265C@sn3rd.com> <f7690c3f-ed4e-e106-9714-4241a9ae6169@mindrot.org>,<CAOp4FwQnEJUOd38HxDyushs3_Q-PfySuiYNKngk3RoYmZooUjA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOp4FwQnEJUOd38HxDyushs3_Q-PfySuiYNKngk3RoYmZooUjA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_9AC6C7751A0D4B9084102E5660829F63_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spamd-Bar: ----------
Message-ID-Hash: JHOKKCENCJ6BRWAXY6HE5Q6BVIVSY5G2
X-Message-ID-Hash: JHOKKCENCJ6BRWAXY6HE5Q6BVIVSY5G2
X-MailFrom: Wang.Guilin@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; header-match-tls.ietf.org-1; header-match-tls.ietf.org-2; header-match-tls.ietf.org-3; header-match-tls.ietf.org-4; header-match-tls.ietf.org-5; header-match-tls.ietf.org-6; header-match-tls.ietf.org-7; header-match-tls.ietf.org-8; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>, Wang Guilin <Wang.Guilin@huawei.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus
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/J6BzoptPvVsikWKKSfIZiC-E-Y0>
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>

My response to the 4 questions is the same. Namely,

(1) yes
(2) only one
(3) no
(4) yes

Why yes for Q1?

I still believe that conservative hybrid/composite approach is better for general cases. With increasing AI cryptoanalysis, it may be not uncommon to see more serious bugs in implementations or attacks against the sepecifications of some well-know (T or PQ) crypto algorithms in the near future. Attacks against HAWK and Classic McEliece were just AI's debut in crypto.

A related note from Germany BSI, sent by Peter:
-------
 https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/BSI/Crypto/Notes_Classic_McEliece.pdf

  "The current situation shows that the recommendation to use post-quantum
  cryptography in hybrid mode has proven its worth".
-------

So, as did berfore, I will keep recommending hybrid/composite approach to our product lines and customers. However, I do not oppose to pure PQ approach (especially for authentication) for limited cases, due to regulation and/or performance/complexity reasons.

Why no for Q3?

Dual certificates seems too complex for TLS. But this approach may find better scenarios later.

Cheers,

Guilin

发件人：Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@gmail.com<mailto:loganaden@gmail.com>>
收件人：Damien Miller <djm@mindrot.org<mailto:djm@mindrot.org>>
抄 送：TLS List <tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>>
时 间：2026-10-03 05:20:58
主 题：[TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus

Same for me.

Also, as I said previously, large players in the tls ecosystems can afford to rotating algorithms easily.

There are some advantages to a hybrid signatures scheme.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2026, 05:28 Damien Miller, <djm@mindrot.org<mailto:djm@mindrot.org>> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2026, Sean Turner wrote:

> Please provide your answers to the following questions by 12 October 2026:
>
> 1. Should the WG work on PQ + T Hybrid Signatures for TLS?
> 2. Should the WG only work on one: -pqt-dual-certs or -composite-ml-dsa?
> 3. Should the WG work on: -pqt-dual-certs?
> 4. Should the WG work on: -composite-ml-dsa?

(1) yes
(2) only one
(3) no
(4) yes

Thanks,
Damien
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org<mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

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