[TLS] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 05:04:53PM -0700, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 4:22 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > On 07/04/2026 21:35, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > > The contention is whether it should be published now or later, when
> > > classic protections gain us little to no benefit.
> >
> >  From my POV, that mischaracterises the contention. I think
> > the contentious issue is whether or not to publish this with
> > or without caveats as to when to use it, and how to encode
> > any such caveats in RFC/BCP text.
> 
> There are two things here:
> 
> 1) The IEEE group wants an RFC. They can advocate for this just as anyone
> else can. (yes!)
> 
> 2) The IETF must do an RFC because the IEEE has made a requirement (no!)
> 
> That cedes sovereignty, and we shouldn't do that.

If the IEEE publishes their own w/o the guidance we would have written
in ours, then we've "ceded sovereignty" anyways in that we would have
lost an opportunity to give guidance.  Either way non-hybrid PQ happens,
so what will have anyone "won"?

Nico
--