IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Tue, 29 September 2026 19:34 UTC

Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [193.110.157.85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE10846 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:34:40 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mx.ietf.org; dkim=pass header.d=nohats.ca header.s=default header.b=kMNWuRa2; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=nohats.ca; spf=pass (mx.ietf.org: domain of paul@nohats.ca designates 193.110.157.85 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=paul@nohats.ca
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4hvSzz4t4Wz34l; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 21:34:39 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1790710479; bh=iHXeDa85Vxk0LfU5tYkU0z9ta5INE1TWy8f1gGI1Hi8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=kMNWuRa2urUqapgVTI+cec+nbdteIRvuUv+WaEdGPut0tT6PsBw3a46YOGRheGygm W5YpkwQul8HL3Ez1T6/2hn4ELSfVb+c3Ziv5bc29HIbmWsbICkcfJUzM8xtY1JOY6d eTMMCYsIH1JP9FqQrlcB7bskDyz0cqYNJbZm7nuI=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.206
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.206 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-0.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_RP_CERTIFIED=-0.003, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.31, RCVD_IN_RP_SAFE=-0.002, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JXGoNoLBF0qc; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 21:34:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 21:34:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A73F8196B727; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 15:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3345196B726; Tue, 29 Sep 2026 15:34:37 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2026 15:34:37 -0400
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <A383CF85-CF66-4A3D-AFBC-3F2CCFEE265C@sn3rd.com>
Message-ID: <c783074c-dce7-2402-7e67-4b2e0d4c2846@nohats.ca>
References: <A383CF85-CF66-4A3D-AFBC-3F2CCFEE265C@sn3rd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spamd-Bar: -
Message-ID-Hash: TW2EKKVL3Q6FSBWND4UPSEBXTVIHWCAO
X-Message-ID-Hash: TW2EKKVL3Q6FSBWND4UPSEBXTVIHWCAO
X-MailFrom: paul@nohats.ca
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; header-match-tls.ietf.org-1; header-match-tls.ietf.org-2; header-match-tls.ietf.org-3; header-match-tls.ietf.org-4; header-match-tls.ietf.org-5; header-match-tls.ietf.org-6; header-match-tls.ietf.org-7; header-match-tls.ietf.org-8; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Confirming PQ+T Signatures Consensus
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/ryt2ms70h_CcSbCxaGebxM_TevM>
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>

On Mon, 28 Sep 2026, Sean Turner wrote:

> Please provide your answers to the following questions by 12 October 2026:
>
> 1. Should the WG work on PQ + T Hybrid Signatures for TLS?

I don't see a compelling reason to work on this now.

> 2. Should the WG only work on one: -pqt-dual-certs or -composite-ml-dsa?
> 3. Should the WG work on: -pqt-dual-certs?
> 4. Should the WG work on: -composite-ml-dsa?

dual-certs seems badly invasive. I'd prefer to wait until later to
decide between composite-ml-dsa or something else.

Paul

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status