[TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3

[Daniel Apon <[e-mail]>]

" Was that a typo? Did you mean WG charter?"

No, it was not a typo.

My position is that the discussion in this email thread / working group
chat(ter) (no *h*) should serve as the clearinghouse for comparison issues.
That is, I believe there is no reason "to compare A to B [in writing, in
the document]."
Long-living documents, in my opinion, should just specify schemes. For
example, the ML-KEM specification doesn't belabor comparing itself to Saber
(a NIST Finalist, and a fantastic one).

While I haven't taken a full accounting, I believe I am agreeing with (as
of my message on April 29) at least -- beginning after Sean's message to
this thread 5 days ago on April 28 declaring "The chairs have judged that
there is consensus to progress this I-D." --
i) Eric Rescorla's message on April 28 [dates as of New York City time
zone],
ii) David Benjamin's message on April 28,
iii) John Mattsson's message on April 29,
iv) Ilari Liusvaara's message on April 29,
v) Uri Blumenthal's message on April 29,
vi) Russ Housley's message on April 29.


--Daniel

On Sat, May 2, 2026 at 9:04 AM Muhammad Usama Sardar <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> My 0.02 South Sudanese Pound (much lower than cents): contrary to the
> (potential) intention, I find the presented arguments more as opposing
> the declared 'consensus' and hinting towards some procedural burden.
>
> On 29.04.26 20:06, Daniel Apon wrote:
> > I think the comparison should be done in the WG chatter.
>
> Was that a typo? Did you mean WG charter? If so, I don't see anything on
> PQ in our WG charter. So by this argument, you seem to be suggesting
> even more procedural burden to first apply for WG rechartering before
> going forward with this document.
>
> The document being discussed for addition
> (draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-sigs-19) has already been approved by
> IESG and is in publication queue. If anything, in the IETF sense, that
> document already has IETF consensus.
>
> > A document intended to be long-living shouldn't carry along ephemeral
> > discussion points, which may or may not age like milk.
>
> About "ephemeral," documents can be "Update"-d, or "Errata" can be
> issued later on, etc.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> -Usama
>
>
> PS: In Germany, there is ultra-high temperature processed "milk" which
> has shelf life of up to 6 months (cf. [0]; sorry I could not find an
> English page, but you can translate; "Monate" == months), which may be
> sufficient to Update a document, or at least to get an Errata approved.
>
>
> [0] https://unsere-bauern.de/erzeugnisse/haltbarkeit-der-milch/
>
>