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

[Loganaden Velvindron <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 19:30, David Adrian <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I support adoption of this document.
>
> - I suspect we will eventually need pure ML-KEM-1024 in browsers.
What's the time frame ?

> - I find the argument that we must use hybrids extremely non-compelling. Lattice cryptography is "boring" crypto at this point, and I find it to be cognitive dissonance to simultaneously argue that the quantum threat requires immediate work, and yet we are also somehow uncertain of if the algorithms are totally broken. Both cannot be true at the same time.
> - The NIST competition was international, and Kyber was developed by an international team. I struggle to understand how adopting this document would somehow be "favoritism".
>
> -dadrian
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 11:11 AM Thom Wiggers <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I support adoption of this document.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Thom
>> PQ-enthousiast
>>
>> Op di 1 apr 2025 om 14:59 schreef Sean Turner <[e-mail]>:
>>>
>>> We are continuing with our pre-announced tranche of WG adoption calls; see [0] for more information. This time we are issuing a WG adoption call for the ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3 I-D [1]. If you support adoption and are willing to review and contribute text, please send a message to the list. If you do not support adoption of this draft, please send a message to the list and indicate why. This call will close at 2359 UTC on 15 April 2025.
>>>
>>> In response to other WG adoption calls, Dan Bernstein pointed out some potential IPR (see [2]), but no IPR disclosure has been made in accordance with BCP 79.  Additional information is provided here; see [3].
>>>
>>> BCP 79 makes this important point:
>>>
>>>   (b) The IETF, following normal processes, can decide to use
>>>     technology for which IPR disclosures have been made if it decides
>>>     that such a use is warranted.
>>>
>>> WG members can take this information into account during this adoption call to determine if we should adopt these drafts.
>>>
>>> Reminder:  This call for adoption has nothing to do with picking the mandatory-to-implement cipher suites in TLS.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Joe and Sean
>>>
>>> [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/KMOTm_lE5OIAKG8_chDlRKuav7c/
>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement/
>>> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/mt4_p95NZv8duZIJvJPdZV90-ZU/
>>> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spasm/GKFhHfBeCgf8hQQvhUcyOJ6M-kI/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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]