IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07 (Ends 2026-02-27)

Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de> Thu, 12 February 2026 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>
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 A9C5BB678E10 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:05:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.397 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=tu-dresden.de
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 0wsaZM3iUCyu for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:05:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout4.zih.tu-dresden.de (mailout4.zih.tu-dresden.de [141.30.67.75]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1D86B678E06 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:05:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tu-dresden.de; s=dkim2022; h=Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:To: Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CDjfeQ6i56pWvIChWnbpBMXCi6QTwohK5trSEAJsHF4=; b=SPcMa50+25HLxfYPhxskz5CtI7 EnxkHscvK/Kxg706Zb6b6iDVj5f9JHYdLmghhwZB3fIAII5g1bnHpR6uhvC8z3NDnAV658yCNB/Cq Glg4SN2KYEnaH8voOMMKggZOjbtmV0x25AmY0ADQJ73qRBjAGbkEQawSzVZ9QxrAf9fvAK4a+DXxM 2mq67oJHBgjrWTNpSUpLObhLMZtVbMUeFjdVHkrrGxsSmMhjV1Kzyrgrp/F4Eh3y5Le48zrO6maq0 nxX6MGeFe6vzuxCOKGd7aBXhVzqux11SkXN6nrulwIjzcgh18jTArYX3FVjyg24Ht4azEOvw39zRO /DnPL/zQ==;
Received: from msx-t422.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de ([172.26.35.139] helo=msx.tu-dresden.de) by mailout4.zih.tu-dresden.de with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>) id 1vqcw4-00F41h-D3; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:05:12 +0100
Received: from [192.168.178.60] (141.76.13.149) by msx-t422.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.35.139) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.35; Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:05:04 +0100
Message-ID: <999a5218-1eaa-4120-bd4d-42551ea496ba@tu-dresden.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:05:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, tls@ietf.org
References: <CAOgPGoDLVqAVesWjrrD9ZR8HMkqQVLMp69vOkXPkk87MzcsOSw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>
In-Reply-To: <CAOgPGoDLVqAVesWjrrD9ZR8HMkqQVLMp69vOkXPkk87MzcsOSw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-512"; boundary="------------ms050805020001040906000809"
X-ClientProxiedBy: MSX-L414.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.34.134) To msx-t422.msx.ad.zih.tu-dresden.de (172.26.35.139)
X-TUD-Virus-Scanned: mailout4.zih.tu-dresden.de
Message-ID-Hash: GLR5L6RZS46UTMZRGL2OJXWUYNI4KGBC
X-Message-ID-Hash: GLR5L6RZS46UTMZRGL2OJXWUYNI4KGBC
X-MailFrom: muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de
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
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07 (Ends 2026-02-27)
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/i2A1x7ujSBbFeG5vLeyg1dn45UQ>
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>

As with anything else related to PQC, I have no opinion on the 
mechanisms defined in the draft since I haven't explored it formally 
yet. But I am researching this now and may be able to form an opinion 
until this end of WGLC.

On 12.02.26 20:05, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> The main focus of this WGLC is to review new text providing more 
> context around the use of pure ML-KEM.For those who indicated they 
> wanted this text, please let us know if the new text satisfies you and 
> if you support publication. This working group last call will end on 
> February 27, 2026.
>
Thanks for updates. My concerns are unaddressed:

 1. No introduction: at least give an overview of important places to
    visit in PQ-land for tourists like me (namely other PQC efforts in
    TLS WG)
 2. Insufficient motivation: who needs it? who will implement it?
 3. No additional references added in motivation since WGLC: IIRC, John
    Mattsson mentioned some references in the previous WGLC (will have
    to dig the links). I wonder why they were not added.
 4. Which "regulatory frameworks require standalone PQ"? Please give
    authentic references with exact section numbers.
 5. "targeting smaller key sizes or less computation": smaller compared
    to what? Please give authentic references of where key size
    comparison is done.
 6. simplicity: in terms of what criteria? Please give authentic references.

Unless the above happens, I *oppose* publication of -07, independent of 
the mechanisms defined in the draft.

I have created an issue [0] to track this.

Thanks for reconsideration.

-Usama

[0] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-mlkem/issues/9

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status