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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 2:47 PM Kris Kwiatkowski <kris=
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I support adoption, as long as the RECOMMENDED field is set to N at this
> point in time (which is a case).
>

Just to avoid doubt, you mean "publication", because this doc is in WGLC?

-Ekr


> Nits:
>
> * draft talks about "expanded keys" and "decapsulation key seeds", but
> does not define them. I think it would be good to refer to the relevant
> sections in the FIPS-203, to make it clear what they are.
> * Section 4. ends weirdly "Section 4.2.7 of [RFC8446]" - should this be a
> full sentence?
> * Double 'and' in the Abstract "...NamedGroups and and registers IANA..."
> and double 'the' in Section 5.
>
> Kris
>
> On 08/11/2025 15:37, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> I support adoption.
>
> I am pleased to see the IANA registry entries for the ML-KEM code points as RECOMMENDED = N; at some point in the future the TLS WG might want to change that, but this seems like the right place to start.
>
> Nits:
>
> Abstract: s/and and/and/
>
> Section 1.1: s/key establishment/key encapsulation/
>
> Russ
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2025, at 1:51 PM, Sean Turner via Datatracker <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26)
>
> This message starts a 3-week WG Last Call for this document.
>
> Abstract:
>   This memo defines ML-KEM-512, ML-KEM-768, and ML-KEM-1024 as
>   NamedGroups and and registers IANA values in the TLS Supported Groups
>   registry for use in TLS 1.3 to achieve post-quantum (PQ) key
>   establishment.
>
> File can be retrieved from:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/
>
> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [e-mail]
> in copy. Objections should be motivated and suggestions to resolve them are
> highly appreciated.
>
> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded again of the
> Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79
> [1]. Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the
> provisions of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of
> any. Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can
> be found at [3].
>
> Thank you.
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>