IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 06 April 2026 16:37 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 AE5AAD709D41 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775493446; bh=fcUBl4ef0zhW6k2YF2x4CbB2F02YyHA4JLxKlGFk5tM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=tuSgkSNr+cszHkrtdxQgE6oLm6ngsWJKik9PT2f9hCfQMv4xSKUy0wpAwh2GyBnsb HLGLZIwLwM0U1AKtnhsyBbrALsQW2fttiyvn2l4j/gs58k+ZZPYNr4D/mBd/H//V1O w0s7R5SoH1c+QpQqQIkyHVVb9VFhKQlC2eKfq46M=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_NONE=-0.0001, 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 (2048-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 dNFYlDf-ZmPn for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bird.aspen.relay.mailchannels.net (bird.aspen.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.221.17]) (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 06F10D709D3C for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4284443C5C; Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a247.dreamhost.com (100-118-167-109.trex-nlb.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.118.167.109]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 70670442FDF; Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:37:08 +0000 (UTC)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; cv=none; t=1775493428; b=d1HmxJ+EW8PhzhXjyCh6anXplQQWTHCH8FluHuvRbERdcJ9/+Mra6O7Oj3V1jLVw+5nKxW CArxq6O7oCHREMWSiLUOFxK4fLm90pSHC6DL0LJtXKRnN7W7i7PkFROplwoxitRzs4EoQm vpsVia7IiQwfynrjJM1Z5zz0KWhKlxNjiDT8GiWUaoolJWKJUa1Uf8DmFRaXJ9SfZIUeiZ poMdBn0pqlREyB9VpOequeZEfsN4ePLjE133pM3i2PMtJRUxLDctVPqSp+n7/gpby+0cxD gC+sNuI/79iX904XNYQcOKNtKIVryevPOFUuw2M7tIZNCnuJgdFP5/OvUxEo1Q==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailchannels.net; s=arc-2022; t=1775493428; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=unuFF1cTmnfmz720ZWhyxXVvZogZ0KCXEfifH+33s90=; b=FES1FttqvFt4D7IgP3W5YYD5TtrPNYhlrBYSycKezSLiaqssjPei6FxFlTf5W6TXRUtXu6 VnkUnfXVTImN/VxgsCX4ofATlxmJuQn00AiEb8rSR239MzDZoLMA0bDBSx0sZwBT+15aDx 5Lj3Sm8qfpGEm0V22ZaoxwfKTqovc/HUP5eYVEMKXmm1ZCK7TcZ/MNCcKiw+QXlxFP71v4 rlb1tDwbZd2yu7S/numj8HGVvX7ZbQAvzqaP6IB88/9xTvbSD8+e6x1STfHO4jgB2nXhSr NUj69UndEnFkHrtpuNr6JvrE0wGh5V6gnpQyELUNE0RjFY5Bs5OucT5s0VtD3w==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; rspamd-7d86dcc447-dmpns; auth=pass smtp.auth=dreamhost smtp.mailfrom=nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a247.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by 100.118.167.109 (trex/7.1.5); Mon, 06 Apr 2026 16:37:08 +0000
Received: from ubby (unknown [75.81.95.64]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a247.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4fqFNM51fmz106L; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 09:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; s=dreamhost; t=1775493428; bh=unuFF1cTmnfmz720ZWhyxXVvZogZ0KCXEfifH+33s90=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=amCSUuN3QX+MHXACIsJuKmYZQQWqUX/c1Kc6xC8wowYNJhk+P2il+InSwYcq9PGlc xvM+f0CHYMLcRHz8OXzoKztmzpLgkS5/W/6JR6lQ2elpiuDQvaOtsslkMWoOy/yRPe rTBRjXz7imX4g8LRO4cScm0ay+nvbMqT6/uOweiqVDzxygGirWCZlkYMdxBwhX8cad I8bucvfLqcQsOpH9Sm/i7XrNnqF1WZu18uDrpIKWEMH0oPAvA6tXcIlyOb30wvRhtw KvRAxtqd7aQVhihx8U5F8qE99CXrnO+8El1IfpAcsF4JbnJf5p4AQgXDULvsmUkzQ1 P5OraH9SVBdXg==
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 11:37:05 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <adPhMR4kOxfb1ro3@ubby>
References: <34c6c882-4cef-4350-9afa-0edb0b460eb6@cs.tcd.ie> <adHR1YEW-mPEb_BT@chardros.imrryr.org> <MEAPR01MB36540326A63FD5EAB70F652BEE5CA@MEAPR01MB3654.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <CAPxHsS+fv2S_Ydub24AHnFJUESxkr=h1me5NEtdsZ4bCqAip-Q@mail.gmail.com> <5b703cb2-721b-485c-963a-c6661b40c4c8@tu-dresden.de> <adO2k_hAp0vBtS49@chardros.imrryr.org> <33967c18-be6f-4902-8dbb-9d75e4936665@tu-dresden.de> <BY5PR17MB4020A7DB00B44AE0013DC208CD5DA@BY5PR17MB4020.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <adPUdOYlXy6Ywhuc@ubby> <BY5PR17MB40202F8C0C8D977555D70ED1CD5DA@BY5PR17MB4020.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR17MB40202F8C0C8D977555D70ED1CD5DA@BY5PR17MB4020.namprd17.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID-Hash: 7ENPSYKFVDA7VR624DRLNNWVBSSU3B6B
X-Message-ID-Hash: 7ENPSYKFVDA7VR624DRLNNWVBSSU3B6B
X-MailFrom: nico@cryptonector.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: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
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/Z5JAX7z7jEAsDBV3U84fbn86FVI>
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 Mon, Apr 06, 2026 at 03:58:31PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
>   * Who is that addressed to, Usama or Viktor?  I can't tell; maybe that's
>   * just an artifact of Outlook being a crappy MUA.
> 
> Or I just don’t know how to use it.  It was intended for Usama while also bolstering Viktor’s point.

There's a way to enable angle-bracket quoting in Outlook, but IIRC you
still get top-posting by default, and you also have to set it to do
plain-text response, and then you have to trim stuff and at your own
`On <datetime>, So And So wrote:` line if you want it.

>   * I don't think anyone in this sub-sub-thread
>   * is arguing that there is no case where non-hybrid performance wins by
>   * enough to justify it.
> 
> I don’t think I’ve seen claims, either. But some of those who are
> hybrid-only are saying the costs are so small that they are (a) asking
> for proof where this is not the case; and (b) threatening to appeal if
> a non-hybrid draft is approved for publication.[1]
> 
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/q4nNjdrGrJv-4s1JYVHz41WJ2Go/

Ah, thanks, I'd not read that one yet.  We've reached the point where
it's clear that non-publication will not achieve what opponents of
publication want, therefore non-publication is now pointless.  The IETF
or the IEEE will both provide sufficient "patina" of respectability for
non-hybrids, but the IETF is much more likely than the IEEE to add
Security Considerations text warning that hybrids are the conservative
approach for now.

Nico
--

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