[TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt
Sun Shuzhou <sunshuzhou@huawei.com> Fri, 28 March 2025 01:01 UTC
Return-Path: <sunshuzhou@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BAD138759C for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.196
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.196 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6pkVniuOwgK for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DF801387595 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4ZP2Jm2zGyz6L5Dl for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:00:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.160.224]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D455A1407F5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:01:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemn100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.122) by lhrpeml100006.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:01:13 +0000
Received: from kwepemj100007.china.huawei.com (7.202.195.252) by kwepemn100017.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.122) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:01:11 +0800
Received: from kwepemj100007.china.huawei.com ([7.202.195.252]) by kwepemj100007.china.huawei.com ([7.202.195.252]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:01:11 +0800
From: Sun Shuzhou <sunshuzhou@huawei.com>
To: "ietf-dane@dukhovni.org" <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt
Thread-Index: AdufemwlBYhkNW3YQ0Kpn740gUEbow==
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:01:11 +0000
Message-ID: <869528261711488d92c40be0344496bd@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.108.241.157]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_869528261711488d92c40be0344496bdhuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: Z3OOCJO5WOWE76U3WORQKSLCL4UP6GYK
X-Message-ID-Hash: Z3OOCJO5WOWE76U3WORQKSLCL4UP6GYK
X-MailFrom: sunshuzhou@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.txt
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/lK0WA0dflw_ShI4rZPg05IXuGIg>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>
Hi Viktor, Thanks for the detail explanation. > Noting the sizes in an order that is different from the wire order is not IMHO a significant issue, given explicit language defining the wire order elsewhere, ... though of course switching the order of exposition, just in case someone might somehow miss the definitive text, would be fine. This caused some unnecessary confusion in understanding. Otherwise I won't ask it. Cheers, Shuzhou
- [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-mlkem-00.t… internet-drafts
- [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tl… Sun Shuzhou
- [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tl… Viktor Dukhovni
- [TLS] Re: [New-wg-docs] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tl… Sun Shuzhou