[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Mon, 23 March 2026 15:51 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOgPGoDd=qhg-mGzB8mrFOGVKHY_9uz+_EO3P_i0_e8TG6v0Mw@mail.gmail.com> <3256af6a-db98-42c7-839e-e96802cae2dd@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <3256af6a-db98-42c7-839e-e96802cae2dd@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2026 08:51:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoCMAXmJodSsQcg9ve2TmHd1nfOpek9nmh=BcDOpN1fvTQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c0dd2c064db30224"
Message-ID-Hash: 3XAJJJC7W42WQ54NWTF26VRFWZCBKHZI
CC: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/XMe96RVPWaKL-ypVoI8NM3Q5jXs>

On Sun, Mar 22, 2026 at 11:04 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
wrote:

>
> Hi Joe,
>
> On 22/03/2026 17:49, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> > ML-KEM WGLC Update
> >
> > We are working through issues brought up during the working group last
> > call. We believe addressing these issues is necessary to determine if we
> > have rough consensus to move forward. We expect the author to address the
> > following points:
> >
> > * Key Reuse
> > * Text for preferring Hybrids
> > * Whether to include motivations (see Liaison Statement)
> >
> > We expect resolving these issues will take a few weeks after which we
> will
> > run a targeted consensus call to see if text changes are acceptable to
> the
> > working group.
>
> The above seems to me unclear and hard to understand.
>
> Are you saying that the 2nd WGLC failed due to a lack of rough
> consensus? (Or not?)
>
>
[Joe] The chairs have determined that there is no rough consensus, but
people have requested changes.  The chairs have asked the author to see if
changes to the draft make a difference.


> Either way, I don't know what you mean by a "targeted consensus
> call" - if the 2nd WGLC failed, then surely another WGLC will be
> needed or the draft is just stalled. If the 2nd WGLC succeeded,
> then (that'd be a surprise and) I don't get why some other consensus
> call would be needed, nor for what.
>
>
[Joe]  The intent here is to run a specific consensus call on the changed
text.  If you suggested changes in the draft in the previous WGLCs then we
ask you to review and state whether the changes have helped (or not).  If
you did not recommend changes, then your position will remain the same,
unless you state that you are reconsidering.


> So I'm confused, sorry.
>
> I do get that sometimes the result of a WGLC is "go ahead after
> fixing these nits" but I don't see how that applies in a situation
> with the fairly fundamental controversies we've seen related to
> this draft.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Sean and Joe
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>
>

[TLS] Status of ML-KEM WGLC Joseph Salowey
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Stephen Farrell
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Muhammad Usama Sardar
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Filippo Valsorda
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Eric Rescorla
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Viktor Dukhovni
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Loganaden Velvindron
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Nadim Kobeissi
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Viktor Dukhovni
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Filippo Valsorda
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Loganaden Velvindron
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Eric Rescorla
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Joseph Salowey
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Daniel Apon
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Eric Rescorla
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC John Mattsson
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Muhammad Usama Sardar
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Paul Wouters
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Watson Ladd
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Daniel Apon
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Daniel Apon
[TLS] Re: Status of ML-KEM WGLC Peter Gutmann