[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for Post-Quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Thu, 27 February 2025 11:52 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
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 93C2B2B5356 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:52:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietfa.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5nSCI1GcLmAz for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5F5802B5351 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2025 03:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 32030 invoked by uid 1010); 27 Feb 2025 11:52:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 27 Feb 2025 11:52:10 -0000
Received: (qmail 645091 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Feb 2025 11:51:58 -0000
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 11:51:58 -0000
Message-ID: <20250227115158.645089.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: tls@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: tls@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <68EDF12D-1C97-4823-AFFE-19BF261D7034@sn3rd.com>
Message-ID-Hash: ZZEU2BNQOXIDPUBEXLO3YDADVRXRABJL
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZZEU2BNQOXIDPUBEXLO3YDADVRXRABJL
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
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: WG Adoption Call for Post-Quantum Hybrid ECDHE-MLKEM Key Agreement for TLSv1.3
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/mt4_p95NZv8duZIJvJPdZV90-ZU>
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>

During a LAMPS discussion of another ML-KEM draft, I started tracking
two BCP 79 compliance issues triggered by the patent situation, with a
structured presentation of the arguments and counterarguments:

    https://cr.yp.to/2025/bcp-79-issues.html

As far as I can see, the same considerations apply to this TLS draft.

The easy way to resolve the first issue is the "modify draft to allow
alternatives to Kyber" fix, which can be applied after adoption, so it's
not an argument against adoption.

However, the second issue can't be similarly deferred if change control
has to be transferred by adoption time---which is my understanding of
how IETF operates. BCP 79 doesn't make this schedule clear, but RFC 7221
says "Remind current draft owners that they are transferring change
control for the document to the IETF".

---D. J. Bernstein