Subject: [TLS] Re: The TLS WG has placed draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement in state "Call For Adoption By WG Issued"
From: Deirdre Connolly <[email-masked]>
To: "Bellebaum, Thomas" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 11:31:55 -0400
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>

> A question to the authors:
> The draft talks about "users that need to be fully post-quantum".
> Can you please give a specific example of such users and their motivation?

A specific example is moving to a compute / dependency base that is
minimalist to only PQ primitives they wish to maintain, such as those that
have long update / deployment cycles, as well as those that want a
minimalist PQ interop target

On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 11:18 AM Bellebaum, Thomas <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I agree with Stephen on this one and would not support adoption of
> non-hybrids.
>
> There is no reason to not work on things like preventing key reuse at the
> ISE.
>
> A question to the authors:
> The draft talks about "users that need to be fully post-quantum".
> Can you please give a specific example of such users and their motivation?
>
> -- TBB
>