[TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: WG Adoption Call for ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3

["Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks to the spell-checker, some choicy words got changed. 

In the text below in the order of appearance:

in -> I’m
cheat -> clear (particularly nice one! AI must be reading mind instead of keyboard 😂)

—
Regards,
Uri

Secure Resilient Systems and Technologies
MIT Lincoln Laboratory

> On Apr 17, 2025, at 13:58, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> “Needlessly” - well, I guess in getting tired and irritated by the incessant attempts of a cheat minority to override the choice the overwhelming majority (which is what I call 75%-25% split) made.
> 
> This group has been trying to reach consensus on “comparative riskiness” for considerable time - and failed, so far. I see no reason to expect such consensus miraculously appearing out of <where?>. Do you? If so, please enlighten me.
> 
> One reason hybrids add risks is the practical implementation/deployment/processes/management/maintenance part, as opposed to treating the issue as a pure mathematical formula - which deployed software apparently is not (some might argue that it should be, I let the reality speak for itself).
> 
> Since It looks like 3/4 of the audience holds position similar to mine - frankly, I don’t see why 3/4 must convince 1/4 that their position is valid (usually, it’s the other way around).
> —
> Regards,
> Uri
> 
> Secure Resilient Systems and Technologies
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory
> 
>> On Apr 17, 2025, at 13:35, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> On 17/04/2025 18:23, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
>>> Don’t try to stuff your perception of risks and correctness into
>>> everybody else’s throat.
>> 
>> Aside from the needlessly accusatory phrasing above, seeking to
>> reach consensus on the comparative riskiness of these seems like
>> a good plan to me, and entirely doable, so I disagree with you.
>> 
>> I also note that you earlier declined to get into the gory
>> detail of why you consider hybrids more risky. Arguing for
>> inclusion of text reflecting the details (gory or otherwise)
>> that have been aired in public seems entirely reasonable to
>> me, so if people who prefer one position over another aren't
>> willing to say why, they should IMO expect their positions
>> to be less well reflected in draft/RFC text.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>> 
>> <OpenPGP_signature.asc>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]