IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Sat, 04 April 2026 03:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 28980D6522BC for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 20:14:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775272484; bh=z9slDi0npDGXom5Mjc1C/gPbDqSbUAuHLsz0znS/wJI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Reply-To:References:In-Reply-To; b=bb85h+G2KMCQKcZi6Dh0RLu0Y3qQr8VJq3nR4BZNqJwrS8RWAAUkzTY2OUtNjfZ0L LDYqA9uZsGN5Xbo5QfOIMJBCrTjyqNDhXRcGDVgP6+IR9zJCzYF6dmmfbotZYWLsHQ cZMl8fh2z3Wa9cXj6OdizOsnjJs2foCWeU6ZeElA=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.398 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=dukhovni.org
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 GzFoSpM0_DiW for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chardros.imrryr.org (chardros.imrryr.org [144.6.86.210]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CC8BD6522B7 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2026 20:14:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dukhovni.org; i=@dukhovni.org; q=dns/txt; s=f8320d6e; t=1775272481; h=date : from : to : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=z9slDi0npDGXom5Mjc1C/gPbDqSbUAuHLsz0znS/wJI=; b=M4pnLWTIozKt6t76EKPqRvxjLIZjz8GHyaC2UIladGhSH4x5LAKn6/B9WSXzmrVivNOGa 6J/K+tAShAAcZ96dUKvt+Aw5zHqZHHpzW8OByf8adum6xkEDqGdyAsgRA5Q6+P6fRmDpdUt 2pQhkLnVE/xHwX7rzXHz35GxrP6ONxk=
Received: by chardros.imrryr.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6874F937700; Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:14:41 +1100 (AEDT)
Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2026 14:14:41 +1100
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
To: tls@ietf.org
Message-ID: <adCCIZsvHqgci5LT@chardros.imrryr.org>
References: <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> <CABcZeBM-eoqh+kJ7H6SiwC9p4tKAt+YiQhzetJZJmPNpXc+5OA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF8qwaALDXR6d=jLD46wXmKHDjyj=OdJ1X3a1AgxF+ByQceeMg@mail.gmail.com> <697d6134-0083-4933-8531-9be49118be7d@cs.tcd.ie>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <697d6134-0083-4933-8531-9be49118be7d@cs.tcd.ie>
Mail-Followup-To: <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID-Hash: CHJ3LG7VYBHRSXQ6VH4RT4H5QWJK75JN
X-Message-ID-Hash: CHJ3LG7VYBHRSXQ6VH4RT4H5QWJK75JN
X-MailFrom: ietf-dane@dukhovni.org
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
Reply-To: tls@ietf.org
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/SdK0KET4u8iTF-MclGhBwLIUx14>
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 03, 2026 at 08:13:51PM +0100, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> On 03/04/2026 19:53, David Benjamin wrote:
> > 
> > I do not think this subjective risk management question of hybrids is
> > worthy of all of this drama and we should just accept and consider this
> > feedback.
> 
> For me, and some others, the question is worthy of the drama, based
> on concerns that some issues might arise with newer algs or their
> implementations. Seems like a matter of safety really, until one is
> convinced of the robustness of pure PQ algs and code. You may well be,
> but I'm not yet.

You and others are of course justly entitled to be concerned about the
potential for novel algorithms to be (un)expectedly broken, and to then
avoid non-hybrid uses.  But what I find puzzling is what one would then
expect to be the result and benefits of non-publication?

    - The pure ML-KEM variants are and will be used whether or not a
      final RFC is published.  

    - The I-D currently referenced by IANA does not reflect the concerns
      that an implementor or user should be made aware of when choosing
      to use a pure ML-KEM variant.

    - Ceding publication to the ISE or other SDOs seems to me to only
      dilute the standing of the IETF TLS WG as the curator of the TLS
      protocol specifications.

A realist, who wants to see hybrid ML-KEM used in preference to pure
ML-KEM would I think publish the RFC with stern warnings in the security
considerations about why choosing hybrid is the prudent choice.

Opposing publication looks pedantically counterproductive.

-- 
    Viktor.  🇺🇦 Слава Україні!

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