[TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus

[Yaakov Stein <[e-mail]>]

  1.  Should the WG work on PQ + T Hybrid Signatures for TLS?
As I have said before, I do not understand why hybrid signatures are needed.
Before a CRQC exists the PQ signature is not needed, after it exists the T one is too weak.
However, I believe “working on” such signatures should be in scope of the WG.


  1.  Should the WG only work on one: -pqt-dual-certs or -composite-ml-dsa?
Why not? There should be some choice with signatures, just as there is choice with other components.


  1.  Should the WG work on: -pqt-dual-certs?
Yes.

4.   Should the WG work on: -composite-ml-dsa?
Yes.

Y(J)S

This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have mistakenly received this message, please notify the sender by a reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.