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

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

On 17.02.26 17:02, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 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.

Several issues with such anonymous inputs. I'll say just one:

How can we assure that what you rephrase here is the actual intention of 
that individual? Reminds me of the time of RFC8773bis when one FATT 
member wrote "Tamarin-like" and chairs relayed it over as just "Tamarin" 
to us, completely changing the actual intention of the FATT member. That 
FATT member later on told me that "Tamarin" was not the intention, and 
ProVerif was equally acceptable.

> [...] then this individual would have a strong
>     case to deploy PQ security. 
I have no idea of this trading thingy but independent of the technical 
argument, I think someone who is not saying it himself/herself on the 
list and not publicly committing to implement it is very unlikely to 
implement it, even if it becomes a standard.
> 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.

Could you ask that individual to share a compelling use case/need for 
pure MLKEM?

Moreover, that individual is reading more than 3-months old version of 
the draft (the latest is -07). Seems like very inactive member of WG.

-Usama