IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2026-02-27)

Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software> Fri, 20 February 2026 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nadim@symbolic.software>
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 B04D8BA96F88 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=symbolic.software header.b="rjs07n2/"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="bILr7NNl"
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 vPKInEdEUTrB for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fout-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-a8-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.151]) (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 404CDBA96F2F for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 09:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phl-compute-03.internal (phl-compute-03.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailfout.phl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76416EC025D; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:02:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from phl-frontend-03 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-03.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:02:00 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= symbolic.software; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1771606920; x=1771693320; bh=4DflPGUATFLF3/9EBVUUGyEYMEdLatLlc8nHLFoVUIo=; b= rjs07n2/Ei+7i1sdpXkSFSWz1pW9idPAfLBRalcJo6lCxiZpNno4qqRNyUkcry+5 BuC/p4qw8/Ez2pRnJL17b2VIAHS23HGM3HluKjQ820LQpC0Q0TMIPtCoS3+hxTvs EjMJm9BJsIIxig49ONeVukC2h2saFXJEB0Y44+v0IEeMqUhpT9S8MicSZM4FHzHp ykw4rKMTCQC62QPJp4aBo0922kqkQM2/iudBBIhAy62+St+BKCXef8SbSG7wJWTO 4tv9eNBsk0CvVZ6HhRg5UF2cE2/3RuCEASGNZ+IUCoxGSNo8bznIXJnMpfgQZXQC Xo0jVcx/7OpsaFlxyVW1HQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t= 1771606920; x=1771693320; bh=4DflPGUATFLF3/9EBVUUGyEYMEdLatLlc8n HLFoVUIo=; b=bILr7NNlEIFcBZeBo+61eb4ZNj4SvchTtGX9Wy7uEJZGjd1ZrgE e6XvmmBTuhsSDGhlMbmgjcUZOSfEkZEWiPWy9uZSjN1CLCVZHcftGLJsDqktziAJ OiWAsdnqP7A9XRU/X/mJKCP62X9+YxTU3Jg61AucIUFsywRYws56zRT1eDG3JLvD ZWzf3e+kj1sGEV+kpSlMO/JRrVS70xZmkk4KyXkrjAUMyM60+3gHucyUBuObzGH8 0kXFxmLTNp942lytBv4qcA7VhTu62aLxuurbIF3aHsYgaYnSKzvd/o49lyDt5h4U CiWq8q5JIn9HFiHZAhFulh8NQW1i7VucJwA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:iJOYaURQNfbwKFMHi-YJR1zjJ7uMKlmU6gjaPdhG_rDi_RzHRiMZBg> <xme:iJOYaflSoIqWM5Yx491n0zAs-ZeYoc5469iF-GSlYURlZKvSAwwem597hF0ptkhUc ZPvK3ZM3bdX2QWyvqqZW-HqWy1GMskm5494WJJEZC4NPJjm33lpTd4>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:iJOYacQ_nCkiD41nk-xREI9e8AHAPzw6acNQeanPZbzQWSxHsyM63Cm0zXoQOq9Vg_M0N705hCpjbJFooRQSZ6p4yibAFjuKMo3AMEVgflUOwJ-SJT7YcrJdaQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefgedrtddtgddvvdekleekucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhephffktgggufffjgevvfhfofesrgdtmherhhdtjeenucfhrhhomheppfgrughimhcu mfhosggvihhsshhiuceonhgrughimhesshihmhgsohhlihgtrdhsohhfthifrghrvgeqne cuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdduffehteelhefhuefgieehledtveeiudduudetvedtffeh leegteeigedtgfegnecuffhomhgrihhnpehshihmsgholhhitgdrshhofhhtfigrrhgvne cuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhgrughi mhesshihmhgsohhlihgtrdhsohhfthifrghrvgdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepgedpmhhoug gvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepuggrvhgrughrihgrsehumhhitghhrdgvughu pdhrtghpthhtoheprhhsrghliiepgedtrghkrghmrghirdgtohhmsegumhgrrhgtrdhivg htfhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehprghulhepgedtnhhohhgrthhsrdgtrgesughmrghr tgdrihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhrtghpthhtohepthhlshesihgvthhfrdhorhhg
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:iJOYaVOMFyhgSwajKVsMixe_yxAHKKz3rY3BDSkKIDNKCcVNaVvWgg> <xmx:iJOYadVkiBhQiTLQ4Jk0vq8ZrmWSQ1jhyIhJrvJpmr4xRd1otbvfSA> <xmx:iJOYaUczM8LWolPqstdxRJUPZDVn59-wUkyP2s_Z1tzF52CsJueHEw> <xmx:iJOYaRsyZSpAdmlIiQfB--98QyjdrfxZunwaSAOSpKRvenuOxgeRPw> <xmx:iJOYaRMpRhhfEkEgrIIuHLmWtqjGzpH1lSkklDVLsCK1RFvzugmEfLHg>
Feedback-ID: i6d3949ed:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 12:01:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software>
Message-Id: <F8BDC225-82D3-402E-8B84-990E7F16E3D5@symbolic.software>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D22D4D7-2A98-4BC2-9190-2DAF27E6E5E5"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\))
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 18:01:48 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CACf5n78fNgGc5KnwDAEt821weeWbc9c434iQjv8pUC4hZGZehg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu>
References: <20260218194044.1135896.qmail@cr.yp.to> <7C9C99AA-42B0-4BC7-8F41-39F35754F1C4@vigilsec.com> <MN2PR17MB40310F0A2891942D76C43E60CD6BA@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <2caab265-00ba-4078-b6d0-3a178dabaa61@tu-dresden.de> <CAEEbLAbkV4YxN7cgggckpEp24MLtRZpzs6M4KemBatpzCCcs0A@mail.gmail.com> <MEAPR01MB3654415F735DE96CEE239C78EE68A@MEAPR01MB3654.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <aZfbhrFDBp7a0xHL@chardros.imrryr.org> <EB48AB24-A1A2-47C8-9C2C-47C93B9320E7@thomwiggers.nl> <93af0689-4bd3-4f6b-afaf-41869d27fa4d@app.fastmail.com> <CAMtubr3QcHbiP5guhBoiFbFh8tKSD6WNHBJkxxb_AM4Wy5i0=g@mail.gmail.com> <9b71e709-69a3-f3d9-4cbd-d4d521556c55@nohats.ca> <ee1be3a5-0e03-4976-8398-45c014c9dfcd@cs.tcd.ie> <MN2PR17MB40312E1668509F478EA89251CD68A@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <18AC90C3-007D-4B41-9B01-A0398EAA81B0@symbolic.software> <CACf5n78fNgGc5KnwDAEt821weeWbc9c434iQjv8pUC4hZGZehg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21)
Message-ID-Hash: ADCLUDRYS3KB7PV44MCVTQLEAOODK5IW
X-Message-ID-Hash: ADCLUDRYS3KB7PV44MCVTQLEAOODK5IW
X-MailFrom: nadim@symbolic.software
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: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul=40nohats.ca@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (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/qMPok3Zo-vD5QS17DOQIj8jmhfc>
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>

Dear David,

> This seems like a tremendous waste of time. The chairs should exclude from their consensus determination mail from people who are not limiting their comments to clarifying text and are instead relitigating the same previously discussed arguments. There is no reason to believe the same people going off topic now, will not simply go off topic on yet another WGLC.

I’m surprised by the aggressive nature of this reaction. This is TLS we’re talking about; it’s important to do things right, especially when we risk adopting new functionality that could very well introduce a weaker mode of operation into the standard that encrypts the Internet.

Furthermore, there’s no need to make negative assumptions about peoples’ behavior! 

We’re all on the same team here, and we all want a more secure Internet! :-)

I’m a cryptographer who did a bunch of work on TLS 1.3 and even I was caught by surprise regarding the advanced nature of this controversial and likely harmful draft. I think when Rich made his suggestion, he was doing so realizing that communication on this list regarding this particular topic has become conflated and a bit of a quagmire, and that a clean reset may be beneficial.

Given the importance of this discussion’s target, its potential impact, and the historic nature of the decision, I think it’s important now more than ever to do things right. Otherwise, the WG opens itself up to criticism of having rammed this thing through despite a lack of clarity on consensus, impact and other elements.

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 20 Feb 2026, at 5:43 PM, David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I suggest that the current WGLC be scrapped.  Wait at least a week for the traffic to dry up. Then issue a new WGLC with a completely different subject line and point out that discussions on previous email threads do not count as part of determining consensus, if you can do that. Run that WGLC until the doc-cutoff for the IETF meeting, and put it on the agenda asking folks to not repeat what they’ve already posted.
> 
> This seems like a tremendous waste of time. The chairs should exclude from their consensus determination mail from people who are not limiting their comments to clarifying text and are instead relitigating the same previously discussed arguments. There is no reason to believe the same people going off topic now, will not simply go off topic on yet another WGLC.
> 
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:19 AM Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software> wrote:
>> This seems wise to me, and a bare minimum indeed.
>> 
>> Nadim Kobeissi
>> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software <https://symbolic.software/>
>> 
>>> On 20 Feb 2026, at 5:11 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> FWIW, I read that as meaning a fresh WGLC not one limited to the
>>> diff. And I think it'd be unwise to process this as if it weren't
>>> as controversial as it clearly is.
>>> 
>>> I agree.
>>> 
>>> I suggest that the current WGLC be scrapped.  Wait at least a week for the traffic to dry up. Then issue a new WGLC with a completely different subject line and point out that discussions on previous email threads do not count as part of determining consensus, if you can do that. Run that WGLC until the doc-cutoff for the IETF meeting, and put it on the agenda asking folks to not repeat what they’ve already posted.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org

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