[TLS] Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-09: (with COMMENT)

[Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Mohamed Boucadair has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-09: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ 
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Deirdre,

Thank you for the effort put into this document.

Special THANKS to Joe for the detailed write-up.

Please find below some few comments:

# Explicit configuration for use

Given the tension captured in the write-up between the various flavors and how
this is currently used in deployment, shouldn’t the document include some text
to says that negotiating such algo requires explicit configuration + the
default is to be disabled?

This can be captured in a brief text under an Operational Considerations
Section.

# The entries are already registered + need to use the exact IANA registry name

OLD:
   This document requests/registers three new entries to the TLS Named
   Group (or Supported Group) registry, according to the procedures in
   Section 6 of [RFC9847].

NEW:
   This document requests IANA to update the following entries in the “TLS
   Supported Groups” Registry under the “Transport Layer Security (TLS)
   Parameters” registry group, according to the procedures in Section 6 of
   [RFC9847].

# Decimal Values are used in the registry, next hex

OLD:
| Value   | Description | DTLS-OK | Recommended | Reference      | Comment     
                   |
|---------|-------------|---------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------|
| 0x0200  | MLKEM512    | Y       | N           | This document. | FIPS 203
version of ML-KEM-512  | | 0x0201  | MLKEM768    | Y       | N           | This
document. | FIPS 203 version of ML-KEM-768  | | 0x0202  | MLKEM1024   | Y      
| N           | This document. | FIPS 203 version of ML-KEM-1024 |

NEW:
| Value   | Description | DTLS-OK | Recommended | Reference      | Comment     
                   |
|---------|-------------|---------|-------------|----------------|---------------------------------|
| 512     | MLKEM512    | Y       | N           | This document  | FIPS 203
version of ML-KEM-512  | | 513     | MLKEM768    | Y       | N           | This
document  | FIPS 203 version of ML-KEM-768  | | 514     | MLKEM1024   | Y      
| N           | This document  | FIPS 203 version of ML-KEM-1024 |

# nits

I flagged some few nits that I sent to the author in a PR for convenience [1].

Cheers,
Med

[1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/pull/28