[TLS] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2026 at 12:31:08AM +0200, Muhammad Usama Sardar wrote:
> On 06.04.26 23:24, Nico Williams wrote:
> > Their trade-offs might be different to ours.  Perhas they think that
> > security in-depth means you'll use TLS at the application layer, with
> > hybrids, and so if you use PQ-only at the network layer, in the worst
> > case scenario you're still protected by the use of hybrids at the
> > application layer.
> 
> Well, this double TLS is really shooting on the foot the only somewhat
> reasonable argument I've seen for non-hybrid so far: efficiency!

We've seen this argument made before on this list.  If you're double-
encrypting, and each layer uses different algorithms...

IIUC NSA mandates double-encryption.

Considering the need/desire for defense in-depth, I am much less
concerned about IEEE 802.11x using non-hybrid PQ than I am about
TLS using non-hybrid PQ.

Nico
--