[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2025-11-26)

[Kurt Roeckx <[e-mail]>]

I'm also opposing this. There is no reason for this workgroup to get involved. We should only publish it if we think it's actually a good idea, and I've not seen anybody arguing that. 

If the document is to get code points, I see no reason for us to publish such a document, there are alternatives.

Kurt

On November 24, 2025 4:11:42 PM GMT+01:00, Simon Josefsson <simon=[e-mail]> wrote:
>I'm opposed to publishing this document through the TLS WG as-is.
>
>At this time, I believe that non-hybrid PQ KEMs are a security risk.
>
>Having Informational/Experimental documentation of deployed protocols is
>reasonable.  However, there should be no urgency to publish this
>document.  Thus I suggest to not publish it now.
>
>We are having trouble getting safe hybrid PQ solutions published.  Until
>we have a couple of widely deployed hybrid PQ KEMs published,
>implemented and deployed, I don't think we should fragment the already
>thin resources we have to reach that goal by spending further cycles on,
>and then publish a fragile solutions like this.  Please prioritize a
>non-NIST/MLKEM hybrid PQ KEM for TLS.  FrodoKEM?  Streamlined NTRU
>Prime?  We need more hybrid PQ options.
>
>/Simon