[TLS] Re: draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Hi Daniel,

Joe and I have reviewed the thread and believe that while Scott’s email is in a grey area with respect to Section 6.1 of RFC 9680 (an informational RFC that provides “Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants”), we do not believe that email should impact this draft being discussed on the TLS list. This draft has been around for about nine months and the idea of doing “pure” PQ cipher suites for ML-KEM and ML-DSA has been around for at least a year longer than this thread. As Scott is not an author of this draft, we do think it is not helpful to the rest of the community who do want these cipher suites specified to stifle discussions.

We should note that draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement is not a WG draft at this point, so if you would like to appeal the decision to allow discussions about draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement on the TLS list you can do so via the process outlined in s6.5 of RFC 2026.

If you have thoughts about how RFC 9680 might be improved or IETF processes improved to address antitrust risks please send those comments to [e-mail]. Discussions about the contents of RFC 9860 are not relevant to this mailing list and are considered off-topic; see our monthly reminder email [1].

Joe & Sean

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9W7sx80XWO_RjAVBIFuaAUyAvns/

> On Dec 12, 2024, at 15:43, Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Daniel
> 
>> On 13 Dec 2024, at 06:28, D. J. Bernstein <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> RFC 9680 coauthor writes:
>>> If, on the other hand, your concern is that there has been a failure
>>> of IETF processes that has created an antitrust risk, then the
>>> appropriate course of action is to follow the appropriate IETF process
>>> for addressing that.
>> 
>> RFC 9680 says that it's "generally inappropriate" to discuss "market
>> opportunities for specific companies". What's the IETF process for
>> addressing violations of RFC 9680?
> 
> RFC 9680 is not a policy but an informational document, including information on an escalation path for antitrust concerns, and so there is no concept of “violations of RFC 9680”.  RFC 9680 carefully says “generally inappropriate” for the topics to avoid because there is a vast grey area here.  The decision on whether or not any specific action is inappropriate rests with the IETF community through its structure and processes.  
> 
> The role of IETF Counsel is to provide advice to IETF leadership to support their formal decision making role as set out in these processes, but neither they nor I have any powers beyond that.  I took your note to me as invoking the escalation path that RFC 9680 provides information on and consulted with counsel and the response is, as previously conveyed, that your concern should be addressed through the standards process.
> 
> I believe you will be getting an email in due course from the WG chairs that explains that further and addresses the rest of your points.
> 
> Jay
> 
> -- 
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]