[TLS] Re: FATT Process Updates

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

Dear Deirdre, Joe, and Sean,

On 10.04.26 16:00, Sean Turner wrote:
> 1. Building on Usama's PR - clarify what happened to each I-D; see PR #16 [1].
I would like to thank you once again for all the effort on this. Now 
that this PR has just been merged, I've published an update 
draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-05 removing all of the process-related stuff.
> As far as why the recent crop - and I use the word "recent" liberally - of algorithm I-Ds that did not go through the FATT, they did not go through the FATT because we had some sense that that was not the FATT's job though we never really articulated that well. We would like to note that none of these recent algorithms I-D went through the FATT starting with draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex, and then draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design, draft-ietf-tls-tls13-pkcs1, draft-ietf-ecdhe-mlkem, draft-ietf-tls-mlkem, and draft-ietf-tls-mldsa. Maybe a good call on chairs' part maybe not, but that's what happened.
I believe except for one draft (see below), that was actually a very 
good call.
> There were other suggestions at IETF 125, but I do not remember much support for them.

I don't recall anyone other than Ekr showing concerns either, and I 
believe I addressed his concerns. But I'll come back to this in the future.

===

Dear Joe and Sean,

As someone who has been doing the formal analysis of the following 
drafts for the WG:

 1. draft-fossati-tls-attestation
 2. draft-ietf-tls-extended-key-update
 3. draft-ietf-tls-pake

and doing some preliminary working for some other drafts, I would like 
to formally request initiation of the FATT process for 
draft-ietf-tls-mlkem. The rationale is that I believe formal methods can 
provide additional value for security considerations of this draft. As 
an example, it can help justify design choices, such as the preference 
for hybrids.

I have shared further rationale and a summary of my work-in-progress in 
[5]. Notably:

    Approach: /symbolic/ security analysis so far (and planned
    /computational/ security analysis)

    Tool: /ProVerif/ so far (and planned /CryptoVerif/)

Please do not hesitate to ask if any further details would be helpful.

Thank you for your kind consideration!

Best regards,

-Usama

> [1]https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt/pull/16/  <-ready to merge
> [2]https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt/issues/19
> [3]https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/RupKEHeJdAzxpNEZnRgerk4en1c/

[4] 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-05.html#section-3.2

[5] 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-05.html#section-3.3