[TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision
Paul Romer <romerp@bc.edu> Wed, 05 August 2026 18:11 UTC
Return-Path: <romerp@bc.edu>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 307C312444EAF for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2026 11:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1785953513; bh=U1n7VpsT7h5mD/Fzy7SWsfnDaBpOrXDJUCOY0UBHM3E=; h=From:Date:Subject:To; b=S+CMck1mBTwrwBeQPkZ606svjuKS6HEUXDAX5m43WcFk9M9hsO7P4OI7IwTyDRPls rON4l2X9qeB4rBno3dpMwE6bU8JUcUrQtf99/wyKWFut48GMQ25et9Kzkaqd6OqNN3 N6rf2ceFsf4ascKiR6MoDBQdzX36sipuHasiBVVc=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bc.edu
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id itxmet1Y1CJR for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2026 11:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 920EA12444EA8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Aug 2026 11:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-c9fe3c9bd5fso114279a12.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 05 Aug 2026 11:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1785953511; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; b=OFfKwYNu+eR634WhlUqg2gEqAxAgts9PSZkWQLkhd9MuPUu16v1FFD30lIYe6bnTcA 5EsRqVKn7Ffs3k0xda3leIDORE4ESS8wrPSyymZMXcwD0/g75Q3nDQ/x2VO1/WwVNJEH LgxzBAVY6Z9m5OtJp7YmjvQ9+B0v9a6hW1klAoZ7Sn/2eZc3JIOkngtO9vKXk7WaX8vu aQUngZ2wMLsCUPpXoESh9Uwr9bUkIkXQUV3wrwOQd6e0h4xiUL2DWigQFC5HRxz75JAD 0oB7iOmePGfeOgTP41EHdGACp8gSXNH3/k1Lu2jnNNeSiKn9qyxDqYUQovnk8Hu2u0qP wR9A==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20260327; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=U1n7VpsT7h5mD/Fzy7SWsfnDaBpOrXDJUCOY0UBHM3E=; fh=iMQEz7fIE2XtFWqLUMEt8tz+aEDEJVSqHa2ftqd9oME=; b=dDCtR1D2h8D+YTAgT0vLW7Xmfifvqums35Ez66PW+PLqk5bP2oX7Em+aF9Dbn2cWOm BqlYbFfM2eA+qDnWW0Aa3vC7ZjA40AIyjmqQCpSwWsZJ6C5oeDzn9P9YdRg0XPxviZ2K y/W8XWddX49qwLn9HBCx7QYazWj68rfWD67D4PeboUbZHJaKRNS/XCEh3Pq1wZj+PR0L j0ROhsnYE61cQH/U9skbhBifI02v68TN7KdqOSPE0Xq0FGa2xEc88My8CsvQMaAOOoZS pC4yM1zkKcuyL/TX0dTbBzAHWm5IFnpgO41vPzummbltNomucogJg8kbZERSqNQrjsYi Yj9Q==; darn=ietf.org
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bc.edu; s=google; t=1785953511; x=1786558311; darn=ietf.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:to:subject:message-id:date :from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=U1n7VpsT7h5mD/Fzy7SWsfnDaBpOrXDJUCOY0UBHM3E=; b=KOAfTDBrc134TdTOOk9EwuVkpGFtd6TNols7pW0GYXkLL/6sjV0m4rKm3OUq+UEq27 TDw8f2h7FVdnRwKXLd0lRTbh9gf7SK3GREj0PxyUN+W0b6Z1VthhuRO6Gg2mgHpB7tQd TOwFGFFMXKFG8vegckmwIXXS33sQew2swb3KDLaVnILGZaykhgpEQQrhGlF8ETxXOad9 1e5OOzbv/dFYV57I8a19nVKf/zsaynB1KZgaYPk1MpXI5jicGbBlIgJXWc6Z6+LtfE9D oY5lJop5I58DOgWxTPv9NuV6EL5/AUdMs7BZbgDfDmvSzgGlTbZGrcqCQhu57de7PfT2 LEaA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1785953511; x=1786558311; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type:to:subject:message-id:date :from:mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=U1n7VpsT7h5mD/Fzy7SWsfnDaBpOrXDJUCOY0UBHM3E=; b=X+Ciy3xQPhEN4AySvSIgj4ILr+IRL3ArT+n+bMIU3qcE/mLgYwWIKDtm8NCW2WuTnm tDuOZAOD477z/QGmiEcxOxOGCGrFLTFvRwpmYpw3Xm37METvk3tLRBlsy3TM8vIb4vvE k+E5Tz9g24vqCqSA7e6lT3xbxL26jss6eYWUJ4vFq0B3yTwhRe3L6HIhrWQkxVs2LXIQ WfNxsRtx/U89pJemF7haIYp3OQOEV4O4+eyuBkeFfZT6lLDJz97x1nMGkoGC4fDhloLa PuWwZsRwqQ15bsAnXFlsBPAuX5IU2epnhbyv3rHTh/fU9jSZUp3jf0nwZ8NaedeElT+V 6+TQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YygFNeT3mocRn08cpSTvgg5+A5yfL/CF3gracF8bPdUXqGVfuhQ foLB7OsxfznCklJeyiQZApJRVbDgFGb0LOBPl1RGDtmLiSLLmKAncdvFxd8kNpoOVJ7jpqFBsTW gUezFNmaqwNSFL9mKCyuWv4BXX/vQ3BIfs671ug7vOcjzijzWxnvLwSp2
X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD108/0HGJVTMJSwMT1EndfEg/qBAbJGrLTgaWWujLQ/gtzhSF8xvJSYlKl8Pnaj Le+UeEgvSI+PsagAahlPzhe6gGvTEAnNYNYI1mkDRkwyzol7kOy/Ot+2cTECS/br/A6OxK1M6Qd bLXv7z187UcMk+dQbxJRVF4SxLiDlzJtT9mtzQGy8/EBlPjiWdCrS8IcFg0qGGr8h0NbQg77kL9 tMxCOPuNo4hQIwBtN29P6BJJztO7pSRHqFucR/aoAMK9hnfDt1nH6//rvNcdEak4EsAPENc4b4u hpROuZLsOuIKMmCXwyCb4xPISQDqQ2v7NTRNy12niC3/22EbJbk2rHXmbUFhXh2va8BS7X3Fs9p E
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a21:a97:b0:3c4:3750:2c03 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-3cb9c1a2a27mr1266980637.9.1785953511498; Wed, 05 Aug 2026 11:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Paul Romer <romerp@bc.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:11:40 -0400
X-Gm-Features: AUfX_my2gCGzHp5xuTYmR2nYzXBzezSkiN3Yh9QQ3QSA5NEMlvojmajDdIG22uM
Message-ID: <CAEzBKQ4aj=bac9i1wjCZGMKZQDh1NW4R-QrX8UdSTGwrvnZCsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: VUKONYEMJOWMFRORY4UF5IV7RSZGPMWH
X-Message-ID-Hash: VUKONYEMJOWMFRORY4UF5IV7RSZGPMWH
X-MailFrom: romerp@bc.edu
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; header-match-tls.ietf.org-1; header-match-tls.ietf.org-2; header-match-tls.ietf.org-3; header-match-tls.ietf.org-4; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YLZMEU91JoR3JKTy3srLTzhPJpk>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>
Rich, You wrote: > We don’t need a consensus call around "some folks will ignore our RECOMMENDED=N” we > know it as a truism. Such folks have their reasons. 1. Consensus I think there is a misunderstanding here about the meaning of consensus. It is easy to correct. - When I wrote about "reaching a consensus", I did not mean going through the IETF process of having a consensus call. I agree with you that implementing that process would be a waste of time. - What I was referring to when I used the word "consensus" is a general state of agreement among the members of the group. For example, there may well be a consensus that "some folks will ignore our RECOMMENDED=N" flag". - When there is a consensus, it helps to put it in writing, just as you have done in this case. This helps cut short any subsequent cycle where someone makes an argument that includes "because everyone will follow our RECOMMENDED=N flag, ..." The easy response is that "we don't need to consider this argument because we already agreed that P is true." - On the more general point about reaching a consensus, in many cases, apparent disagreement is caused by misunderstandings like this one. A good discussion supports convergence to a consensus because it clarifies misunderstandings. 2. Risk For a readable explanation about how to think about risk, take a look at Chap 5 of "Robin Hood Math: Take Control of the Algorithms That Run Your Life" by Noah Giansiracusa. Noah is a Ph.D. mathematician who writes very clearly. 3. Smart Cards The reason I recommended going from an estimate of the average savings from downgrading from X25519MLKEM768 to MLKEM768 to a distribution is precisely because there are many devices and the savings will vary by device. To go beyond whataboutism--"What about smart cards?", "What about mobile?" "What about YubiKeys?" ...--we need to start with estimates about how often various devices do the calculations required to set up a TLS 1.3 connection and measurements of the computational resources required to do the calculations for X25519 are on each device. From this data, one can construct the distribution and use it to give a more complete device specific analysis of the decision about which of the two protocols to deploy. For TLS connections, I imagine that if a smart card is involved, it is used in conjunction with some other device that has a network connection. To consider that case, we'd need to know about the other device.
- [TLS] Discussion about the Deployment Decision Paul Romer
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Paul Romer
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Sophie Schmieg
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Paul Romer
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Bas Westerbaan
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Salz, Rich
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Sophie Schmieg
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Nadim Kobeissi
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Paul Romer
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Salz, Rich
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Paul Romer
- [TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision Salz, Rich