[TLS] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"

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

Thanks Nico for sharing your insights. I think this is useful discussion 
and might help us make some use case for pure ML-KEM.

To be on the same page, framing the problem for clean discussion. Could 
you please clarify which one of the following did you mean?

    Outer TLS: Network layer: use pure ML-KEM

    Inner TLS: Application layer: use ML-KEM + ECDHE

OR

    Outer TLS: Network layer: use pure ML-KEM

    Inner TLS: Application layer: use ECDHE

What I still find confusing in both cases is that if outer TLS is 
long-lived, then performance benefit of pure ML-KEM (vs. ML-KEM + ECDHE) 
should not be a valid argument. That is even if I accept that the 
performance impact of ECDHE is significant, it is just one-time 
bootstrapping cost for a connection that will be lasting for long-term. 
What am I missing?

Best,

-Usama