Return-Path: 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 885F2D9E05B0 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:21:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775848871; bh=c/ffdJJnq63m96TQriZm6MPD2ol5f3pE2AJLxI3QA70=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Reply-To:References:To; b=BnPBa+HH2xfm85IqsOXiO4kGtXe1E7/j6Il9zlL0Gd/dPe4k8/WV/JnQgjRH0QWbC ll31p1xybrhEYH3b0iFLEKc+PNHKec0W77UXcN96zCmy6ni4wC3GwRKjSru6PRQKTO 2ACh5lFSeDoxx9Uy35eU+Nk7mHCxj8iU2ja1y4jQ= X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vigilsec.com Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k_B3mJoR380H for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:21:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B02A1D9DFE03 for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 12:20:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9801A1074; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-96-255-71-95.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.71.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 73B7E1A1D5A; Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\)) From: Russ Housley In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:20:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6A8E9AA4-A685-4702-9657-FFF9EBDB457F@vigilsec.com> References: <3e539579-4107-41fc-80a5-824b24c275be@tu-dresden.de> <43fd169d-d280-40dd-9d2c-311040bed4ad@tu-dresden.de> <6cf2c9d5-3846-4685-9615-0de2195b6e15@tu-dresden.de> To: Muhammad Usama Sardar X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vigilsec.com; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=pair-202402141609; bh=lb6umS/7HpXC1jcOK2SPVMU1I0GsooxVfTOOuZOhxb4=; b=cH7jNIHvs9Ak+n7AHE8tfUHC0UOfkTSykNySTkW96hXC2e+HewZE0dn8cPLy7rXNOForZ2tmRgWw5tANScnZWW4z029ug+mUkONxxnKexhb13yIybeXEOLIj/0h/OmOwDqaXPij0nxdEEXKCmHVwNPZh4E7hWuZo1CyYGW0dVJLsHiiKyWBW0XItLeQiYf7lfhkna/kzexBQN2Jitqm9OBvU0LWvL5o+pLwrgfXIjTI0YCA+wo/dJ5KRf+YyjS9nEsTpX0RGADUW6MBSTxKTYWNjwqgAnDMoR6FiU6GZO7nXVTDvimqFILPMXX/QvoJIKn5jBEQHb4JiXkGKnVJjeQ== X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09 Message-ID-Hash: YPWHKPTE6YNJI3CJLDTGCTMCPQ7JIYP4 X-Message-ID-Hash: YPWHKPTE6YNJI3CJLDTGCTMCPQ7JIYP4 X-MailFrom: housley@vigilsec.com 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 CC: IETF TLS X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6 Precedence: list Reply-To: IETF TLS Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5BTLS=5D_Re=3A_Working_Group_Last_Call_for_Use_of_ML-DSA_in_TLS_1?= =?utf-8?q?=2E3?= List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Usama: > I totally understand the normative reference but what I don't = understand is > that how should I interpret the security considerations as SHOULD NOT = or > MUST NOT? I am claiming that text should explicitly say MUST NOT to = resolve > the mapping ambiguity. I cannot agree with you on this one. I just re-read Section 3.4 of FIPS = 204, and I do not see any security considerations that a specific to a = TLS protocol implementation that need to be called out in this document. Russ