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

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

Like other pure ML-KEM uses, I am OK with adoption, though I might oppose Recommended: Y when it comes to that.  I also share John's concerns about key reuse, but would prefer to litigate that in the working group, rather than during adoption.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025, at 23:58, Sean Turner wrote:
> 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]