[TLS] Re: forwarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 use case

[Bas Westerbaan <[e-mail]>]

I encourage them to try it out. In many use cases *hybrid* PQ TLS 1.3
outperforms non-PQ TLS 1.2.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 5:10 PM Paul Wouters <paul=
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I was asked by a TLS participant to relay some information publicly
> regarding their pure PQ mlkem use case. I have rephrased their ontribution
> in my own words below.
>
>         There is a use case for MLKEM in the market of high-frequency
>         trading.  Apparently there were complaints from those users (eg
>         traders) in the past about the performane impact of migrating
>         to TLS 1.2. If there is a performance drop with TLS 1.3 with an
>         MLKEM hybrid, then migration to PQ (or TLS 1.3) would stall. If
>         they can offer a (even tiny) performance gain of TLS 1.3 MLKEM
>         over TLS 1.2 ECDHE, then this individual would have a strong
>         case to deploy PQ security. Otherwise, the traders will insist
>         on waiting until a CRQC is publicly known to exist.
>
> The individual stated they are in favour of adoption the pure mlkem
> document along with the hybrid document so people can pick either,
> depending in their use cases.
>
> Paul
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>