IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26)

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Mon, 24 November 2025 19:07 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
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 46BE68FB0880 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:07:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 BxGt1Uc8S8Mg for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:07:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE0138FB0858 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 11:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 3747521 invoked by uid 1010); 24 Nov 2025 19:07:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 24 Nov 2025 19:07:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 233981 invoked by uid 1000); 24 Nov 2025 19:07:43 -0000
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:07:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20251124190743.233979.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem@ietf.org, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMiXTGzNUZ54nEOe2K=MWTU2dxo-o0eoweKcf6av55Wrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID-Hash: DW6KPO3PYLBW2T4ID37PMJ2CGB2DZIK5
X-Message-ID-Hash: DW6KPO3PYLBW2T4ID37PMJ2CGB2DZIK5
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; 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: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26)
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/_2-zM3cZmNxUIGeEK0tbrz5_tVs>
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>

Eric Rescorla writes:
> Given that any particular connection can only be protected with a single
> algorithm, it's not clear to me how the world is improved by having multiple
> algorithms with roughly the same performance properties.

Does this imply a position on the last-call topic, given that ECC+PQ has
roughly the same performance properties as non-hybrid PQ? Or are you
looking for more information?

---D. J. Bernstein


===== NOTICES =====

This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be
created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft. (That
sentence is the official language from IETF's "Legend Instructions" for
the situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications
nor to allow publication as an RFC". I'm fine with redistribution of
copies of this document; the issue is with modification.)

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status