[TLS] Re: RFCs on weakened crypto are not fixed by warnings

[Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 07:40:14PM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> Viktor Dukhovni writes:
> > I haven't seen any objections to publishing with caveats

I wasn't clear enough about the context, I meant to say any objections
**by those who support publication** to publishing with caveats (if
that's what it takes to publish).  Which is course quite different.

> The statements of opposition are much more commonly asking for the
> document to be stopped (at least at this time). Stopping the document is
> a much safer result than issuing the document with a caveat.

Well, now I briefly have your attention, I feel obligated to say that
while I agree that use of hybrids are a safer bet, I don't agree that
not publisheing is "safer" or accomplishes anything worthwhile.  All
that not publishing will do is to move the action elsewhere, where the
caveats are more likely to be neglected.  Some delay in deployment may
perhaps result, but non-hybrid (ML-KEM) is being used and will be used
more widely over time.  At least that's the way I see it, choosing to
be pragmatic despite some natural proclivity to at times be dogmatic.

-- 
    Viktor.  🇺🇦 Слава Україні!