IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Fri, 20 February 2026 15:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 CC684BA77403 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:01:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 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_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nohats.ca
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 LeQrh6CF0SKh for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::85]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 371F8BA773FA for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 07:01:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4fHYN35xBYzFJF for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:00:51 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nohats.ca; s=default; t=1771599651; bh=37l54g3H2M8/G+WSQR5hL0SQoLZ86XycHv6fYuOzn5Y=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=GHEWl2cdUR8s4Rzc078aL1RYwxg/wpjttXEno59DxdV6hsF9DBZkeA7SkcVN6D82Y 3Vrd7EMX7FT5XZK7GOqYyCWFv0OgJZa1TKtzXEOGHtkCoidFVdreJjFNjhjYFlhlMR ug6I4FJmQVOs6Ob4vM9MMc7CuypJHY4d/6bUEI3g=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9z90UfFeXOw1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:00:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (bofh.nohats.ca [193.110.157.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:00:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C147F184874C; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:00:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD983184874B for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:00:48 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 10:00:48 -0500
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: tls@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAMtubr3QcHbiP5guhBoiFbFh8tKSD6WNHBJkxxb_AM4Wy5i0=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9b71e709-69a3-f3d9-4cbd-d4d521556c55@nohats.ca>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-ID-Hash: DBFLHFZKCV7KLHPAQTTMJ5NJU3WP5HDO
X-Message-ID-Hash: DBFLHFZKCV7KLHPAQTTMJ5NJU3WP5HDO
X-MailFrom: paul@nohats.ca
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-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/x7KDwtto0yAEeJVqCG5w7hz7R1Y>
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>

[ AD hat on ]

All,

I want to remind people that the goal of this 2nd WGLC is to focus on
the new text changed in responds to the conclusion of the 1st WGLC.

We already had a WGLC on this document [1] and the conclusion [2] was
that it passed WGLC provided some clarifying text would be added that
stated that for the general use case, hybrids were preferred. This
2nd WGLC is about that topic.

There is an appeal chain that got muddled by the inappropriate use of
derivative clauses that is still in progress, but so far yielded the AD
statement [3] that confirmed the WG Chairs view that the consensus call
passed. There is an appeal with the IESG [4] on that decision, and this
document will not be placed in the RFC Editor queue until that appeal has
concluded, but will also not stop all processing while the appeal runs.

This 2nd WGLC is meant to get those people who provisionally said "yes"
to publication of this document pending some extra text, to review this
text and let us know if that resolves the conditional part of their
"yes" statement. The text changes to discuss can be seen at:

https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05&url2=draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-07&difftype=--html


I understand this is a heated topic. I am also not hearing from people
that they have changed their opinion on whether or not to publish this
document at all. Confirming your views are fine, but again, that is not
the goal of this 2nd WGLC. It would be helpful if, especially those
people who wanted additional clarifying text, to give us feedback on
this. And ideally, offer up suggestions that would address any still
outstanding issues.

Thanks,

Paul

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Pzdox1sDDG36q19PWDVPghsiyXA/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Gc6KVPrVHn-QCkeEcvJ_qtRcFxY/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/dzPT8KQe4S-_pZROLUJMvS9pM0M/
[4] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/230

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