IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 03 April 2026 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 130C8D62BC8A for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775239283; bh=cJvgYg/Iu/vJHX3l3XRPnt43NE8Y6J2z4bkZCi6S6DE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=i0+QvHzs9Sq2m/0cG4uXCArRK4L3cEgVWDPNjTkOJ5WdETadRoKTIcVSEB4C3mon8 c7dqRwIgrDJ6guESgTgZYtt+HQE5/b5LIZxZuSM+vsIdDlqPRDCJNYtuyLoSMoS3qJ nT75ZuzRaojONLBM3SkzOplRHmNlX6A6tomzs7vw=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20251104.gappssmtp.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 KwBCa6UvA15W for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 11:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx1-xb134.google.com (mail-yx1-xb134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b134]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E9F3D62BC08 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yx1-xb134.google.com with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-6501d32b04bso2277953d50.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2026 11:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1775239272; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=JAWzKhs250haMw1hGmJOeKtgigGE9GPSL25BwvK/Wh94+NbqkHfBYGKJNYCewqKD98 sA5gBi7D8z+wOUjc2hFecmMWHLb02TZvj4uTjx/bU4O7cWRn7yL7WuOgK5FwFK43YE1N 9i/jXkUQFjUKlZV272WwxCxAtlbprcMCiWvzV7wJjANwhdWlInnlG7Ugbhj+elMPio/X zo5EZLpVr/pDWPLtTXw9dGmToN0/lCCuFQ5tfUN+5iTDMEUBODNq6xWh3rVAodkXvvAK 3Q3WoXTSX82WKnDUcjyCj5waYVGd7d8y0+nQVf/ds7IzyUBvmEC39loT1/v1jWe2S6gf /69A==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=T1+GB5q8sDP0Mes7TsM+s3jDVHqwbyTdG78VrtWUGwg=; fh=a/XXZG/yi9w13N9wNBiI9kDoYeX+KjhdFmyiuGSED4I=; b=jk3qeK+Ewkj4YKJJcc8WDAQPspOSCdwXoymKkZLbGSrC+nLnvFmDRGPR0RFaMJdC1E JwkY9IDEmQf4gnped5dJSQ7qmkkswGWooxOKS3UrFVZ5IRLZSTdlZZl8QX9S2Dp64+Kh an1+axx4vxLbxf0MZ0hxUhUjrDLk+HyWP71jUJG2k+eB+YTWhuRQeUz0kt768iN+QNPy +22njyV3kugxci1RqOYJfQmkBbQ/TwzS0qXiuS1tRHPlH7b/1LN/x6ET4xjUbR2uLvxK EL1V3TsUHna6MkuZwxbTuL40hWakbAqobknOaYxrb5axNKJ/mYWuNmWch3e8Gkj+Ho0r FBDA==; darn=ietf.org
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20251104.gappssmtp.com; s=20251104; t=1775239272; x=1775844072; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=T1+GB5q8sDP0Mes7TsM+s3jDVHqwbyTdG78VrtWUGwg=; b=j64vuGOlOCSFBCK+9+GjLH2Vb+Zi72FWzCYkm5OLHft6GW1tvxoJraRbcMuQ6AyjRz IyoHlMeit/f4tIVxbiKZOzpA5KvOXjVuLnMksGAaVt8UBVsOKLje2tbGXQ5mf2yAKbQs dy4NmShKL/n/NqLew28f+I1amImfmsx6/hg7KkE9EFZev7JksR0xhFFWf8Fzmkk7CGLn rnblMD15cK2r2u5gJaVp3zKBZslsz/r8GVBmGxknirrOlzfT7BpnRaaiIV7NywyDEBIM AjyTfuC5BGFMYEzPvaHXU5P4EMGNt14FPyYvWSpRyHKtvOekU5EzvMjp0pXGDkOl4bZ0 9TEw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1775239272; x=1775844072; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=T1+GB5q8sDP0Mes7TsM+s3jDVHqwbyTdG78VrtWUGwg=; b=FySPk5X7sCsAYzg3JqCPJkM++RSiIzaT8Df7RcvjGzxc9RIr8VpZgq8bGSf/YuBRg8 goVihzn7w4zsVBGmNExgXZVWvFYprTeiPJqEeC+hit817RTbl1plKSUglqE2GX9JLcy1 zxYyWBP6nGd/+mUPwERr3BtnOxlL9V7gpUIucsIoZ4oWPZ2s6HtIcpenTaId6zW+dY5k 4uke2BRZbwEfsdv3+WRQFf6OuQYgf24+Wyivk7OCx/O5lRVGVygP5432QuiRk7QPfgrO dH8dcW54lh0HAxH81GGMTuPGf8iYLNT2qWkG8iah8rCb0YhvLPd6DTPEqILQTD3zYTNn uEBw==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXpDSJPGafHL0JTFy92fUMQLOCBfkfVqqaDhP+6/DtGnKm04LWNDsYB9J4z5Lkyyi7MeEg=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxwrDrnKDjFf3QFWwvk7L0zElrxSnSuT6WfxUQo+gUEF8djXgBU tAHHQHbROind/IF2gYyM/0zDtSdJvFgExDBJfYt7DQrzYDNsS4MbQt3reaQcZTFv4o2rFroMpEY MP0JwuxBbWurqM/N1v8K6zpyVz9cI1qBwsnQuD8sdxsT+Rl3qwPgQ/ZQ=
X-Gm-Gg: AeBDiesOmGVILdgGOkJufDRycayFP74Ezm8qb8eJpEHBVOmZxcnpPk81cD0A5nKxQ6X y7IqyBsOAONG0+OD176KdFA63xVJZo4h81qCzOMAJOVKK/YfHVnoJ7bR4IXhd3AKviq3qbgPRww t5U7jktcGRv4zqiGSjdAdTqnhJIm3Wu9cW+yNebEBWvtfGlFgxwztvsoCY4/rrpKeNhRAvhJ5YB 3S+Iip1GUB62KTEH3jQULAVg03bRS7gimswqP6YLuAPbhgUhoazVabKmw2lofMZA2rpsHXqeGEX AmzobX43DL/r9pP2ieF2M2TYK6njeZdV3PEsT4uxrwwhEVXswHaHKmWAtKHplWuhCz5baTlUThn wtefaP9jwscG6mdpqVbq8+A==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:dc9:b0:79e:9cc1:ede7 with SMTP id 00721157ae682-7a4d62545a3mr38854567b3.10.1775239271507; Fri, 03 Apr 2026 11:01:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <177515578056.110728.11479383677020007340@dt-datatracker-9dc8fdd9f-qcdj9> <2efcd86e-c248-4cce-a601-b65e3ee4b5ae@tu-dresden.de> <5E23938A-6AAC-44A8-A515-C8B031203A16@vigilsec.com> <CAL02cgRS0VXm9ZyXZd=-ZOi-VCvTbvk05rjbTCm6_ksgu-RBKg@mail.gmail.com> <ac7oEfBv6zLisnIi@ubby> <CAL02cgRyekc5oz5FaGRcLvxcxNrUSYKH0pXxxxATke_SLZ1aLw@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8qwaBcotZqOnY2qJ6d0fRoa=5v0sZTOSWqeqkou+bLJcy9LA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPr+WeivTWpSCVC4f95fRuSiOytvvBPB_6r+af9Didhgw@mail.gmail.com> <CEB84168-5998-432A-9D62-36E28B9CDFA5@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CEB84168-5998-432A-9D62-36E28B9CDFA5@vigilsec.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2026 11:00:35 -0700
X-Gm-Features: AQROBzAS4hclmyyvllflMMa6K5d1BrlWlZAN_Sz5EPdCwxsy_3L-U4h4UBp2nME
Message-ID: <CABcZeBM-eoqh+kJ7H6SiwC9p4tKAt+YiQhzetJZJmPNpXc+5OA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002b86bd064e921afd"
Message-ID-Hash: LHDA4GEQDL2K76YEZ2LCCFIIIJASDC3H
X-Message-ID-Hash: LHDA4GEQDL2K76YEZ2LCCFIIIJASDC3H
X-MailFrom: ekr@rtfm.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: Transport Layer Security Discussion List <tls@ietf.org>, Sean Turner <sean+ietf@sn3rd.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: New Liaison Statement, "Liaison communication to IETF regarding draft-ietf-tls-mlkem"
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/LCtGfIAfsOkuuh5NP7l0wAWUk4A>
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>

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 5:17 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

>
> Now, sometimes, as in this case, we get people who want to use an
> algorithm ask the TLS WG to publish an RFC because they don't want to
> use the code point without an RFC. However, the reason these documents
> aren't being published as RFCs is because there's not consensus that
> have consensus promote their use, so I don't think publishing them as
> an RFC so that others can more readily use them is a very strong
> argument. If people find it somewhat harder to use algorithms for
> which there isn't consensus why is that bad?
>
>
> I think you are mixing two things.
>
> Is there consensus that that document accurately captures the details for
> using the algorithm in an interoperable manner?  If so, then I believe that
> the document should move forward so that the people that want to use that
> algorithm can do so.
>
> Is there consensus that the TLS WG wants to promote the use of the
> algorithm?  If so, then I believe that document and the IANA registry
> should reflect that consensus.  The IANA registry will say Recommended=Y.
> Of course that will change over time because algorithms age.
>

I am of course aware of this distinction, but I don't think it really
matters much
in this context. While it's true that Recommended=Y is intended to indicate
a judgement by the TLS WG, I think it's clear that many regard the
publication
of an RFC by the TLS WG as a form of endorsement, even when Recommended=N
[0].
In fact, this is precisely why the publication of some documents has become
so
controversial.

Taking a step back, it seems to me that the people who are opposed to
publication of this document are of the opinion that people shouldn't
use the algorithms it describes. The argument you are advancing here
is that the IETF should publish this document because it enables others
(in this case IEEE) to use these algorithms, but whether that's a good
thing or not is precisely the point of contention!



> With that said, if we want to make a shift like that contemplated
> draft-barnes-tls-this-could-have-been-an-email, such that even
> documents which the WG does feel positively about and otherwise could
> have gotten consensus to publish as RFCs are just I-Dsor emails, then
> we perhaps do in fact need some permanent definition of the algorithm,
> but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
>
> I addressed this above.  Internet-Drafts are a work in progress.
>

The TLS WG and the IETF have already determined that the I-Ds are an
acceptable
reference for code point definitions.

-Ekr

[0] I don't think this position is entirely unreasonable given that the
documents
state on the face of them that they "represent[s] the consensus of the IETF
community."

v2.40.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status