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

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Mar 15, 2025, at 9:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 15/03/2025 10:14, Russ Housley wrote:
>> Stephen:
>> I did write to Yunlei and ask for an IPR disclosure.  
> 
> Yes, and thanks for doing that.
> 
>> As far as I
>> know, Yunlei has never participated in an IETF activity, so he has
>> not promised for follow the NOTE WELL.
>> Dan pointed the LAMPS WG to a message where KCL publicly claimed
>> patents related to ML-KEM (formerly known as Kyber):
>> https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/Fm4cDfsx65s/
>> m/F63mixuWBAAJ
>> In that same mail archive, the following statement was made by the
>> same person regarding these patents:
>> https://groups.google.com/a/list.nist.gov/g/pqc-forum/c/Fm4cDfsx65s/
>> m/2NzgqoTaBAAJ
> 
> I note the following quote from the discussion (dated May 19, 2022,
> 5:03:08 AM) at that last URL: "Yes, certainly we can make such an
> official claims about patents as you suggest. It may formally start the
> work after NIST or other standard organizations show the applicability
> interest." Maybe I'm being optimistic, but if that the and other
> statements about those patents only being intended defensively are
> the case, it'd seem like that set of inventors might be incented to
> make an IETF IPR declaration if asked, e.g. by a set of WG chairs
> and/or ADs.
> 
> Cheers,
> S.
> 
>> Russ
>>>> On 28/02/2025 18:56, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>>> In response to the WG adoption call, Dan Bernstein pointed out
>>>>> some potential IPR (see [0]), but no IPR disclosure has been
>>>>> made in accordance with BCP 79.
>>>> While I don't think the lack of an IPR declaration is fatal here, I do think it'd be great if that uncertainty could be reduced. I think I saw that Russ tried to reach out to one of
>>>> the possible patent holders to ask if they'd be willing to make
>>>> a declaration. I've no idea where that's at, but I'd encourage
>>>> the TLS chairs and SEC ADs to see if they can help get that to
>>>> happen as reducing uncertainty would be good and if we can't,
>>>> then this topic will just keep cropping up and Dan is not the
>>>> only person I've heard express concerns in this regard.
>>>> Cheers, S.
>>>> PS: I do realise we can't force someone to make an IPR declaration.


Stephen,

We are following up with the ADs and other WG chairs to see what can be done.

spt