IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Mon, 06 April 2026 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 5EB4FD70D053 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1775494999; bh=jh2zXFwO805CpagwkdyLN0k/ndCWWRJ3hex3sipCe70=; h=From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=cQ3rWwPpFpX38CU9Z1f2RAhsjRbHWZBwfBbmGKNSQKduBnpPE4WP2f6/sIorFkzZH NvqIgMKIZMN8p//jItclXTp8vrjjuCwq5udvOU1VHF9J/VbsNShmF4i6Hf22UvsmyN z5i87jXrvVlHMT0z1j3qtdZDhGxj8IE7KP0xaSi0=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=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=vigilsec.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 lcfExgea0GLz for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (mail3.g24.pair.com [66.39.134.11]) (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 88671D70CF6C for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 10:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail3.g24.pair.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E977E1A1B73; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (pool-96-255-71-95.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.255.71.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail3.g24.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CAD8F1A1549; Mon, 6 Apr 2026 13:03:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Message-Id: <59ADD91D-9A81-4DC5-A3B5-3D8C2747AB96@vigilsec.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_46A47D18-0A52-4F08-B7E1-B61CD5C44D3C"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3864.400.21\))
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:02:59 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5b703cb2-721b-485c-963a-c6661b40c4c8@tu-dresden.de>
To: Muhammad Usama Sardar <muhammad_usama.sardar@tu-dresden.de>
References: <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> <adCCIZsvHqgci5LT@chardros.imrryr.org> <597455e4-29e1-46a0-a9a7-b87c5adbaec7@cs.tcd.ie> <adFBMGhVMOl2eptE@chardros.imrryr.org> <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>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3864.400.21)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vigilsec.com; h=from:message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to:references; s=pair-202402141609; bh=pludYaspnSY10SUWdzMIzwBfX2mSZwHmH0/TLjqv0TE=; b=SebA5DMWFqB0O+k2UkeMROyJwAVgP/ZV7ueZ850Va+NiiwV/GU9fIk5mnlTQYmw5v67MWwButMNQeajeN9IBKM1ATfrRnGUnvZ8odtxYRpdy2qweeyMzDYSO1oQ3fA0AUMTl14BXLvQAlkv/DC05povnH9MAc2eC2Uy3FWAN+y5OEEqPjO0yf3a7Wkt7yBXyZSIB3lWuYMXhaKJTCXobompzcxvRBIflnzBsquAXIPvVfcV3fXhzxFwjlMH/x4UuFYNgYYyfNTIhRIahvoZ9Wq/9Ch6DZyneN/kIVigruMIsdpoHXWgWc/HEmWLIbIs2u6PsK8v3ZsBB5It8ntHEQw==
X-Scanned-By: mailmunge 3.09
Message-ID-Hash: UM6CPWINBKYWMF5SXBB2FAHFV7N22OIN
X-Message-ID-Hash: UM6CPWINBKYWMF5SXBB2FAHFV7N22OIN
X-MailFrom: housley@vigilsec.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/HzWnB3dB3ZkoHxTLqeAiH_gYzME>
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>

Usama:
> 
> Soliciting an LS to "do the trick" for showing consensus does not address the technical concerns of two dozen people who have opposed publication in the WGLC. Given that there is no public evidence of IEEE 802.11bt having consensus on using pure ML-KEM in TLS protocol, isn't it fair to ask for technical rationale?

This response ignores a lot of context that has already been shared in this thread.  I am responding so that people that have not been following closely do not this your red text is correct.

IEEE 802.11bt is an approved project to add PQC to 802.11 wireless network standards, which already make use of EAP-TLS. The  Project Authorization Request (PAR) explicitly mentions ML-DSA, ML-KEM and SLH-DSA as examples of PQC algorithms.  The TLS WG has adopted draft-ietf-tls-mldsa, draft-ietf-tls-mlkem, and other algorithm-related I-Ds, which indicates to the rest of the world that PQC algorithm documents are in the works.  On the IETF/IEEE 802 coordination call prior to IETF 125, the was a heads up that the WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-mlkem was underway, but it might not achieve rough consensus.  The IEEE 802.11 WG sent a LS to indicate their desire foe the document.  Sending that LS required a formal vote, so your statement is absolutely incorrect.

You can find the approved Project Authorization Request (PAR) for 802.11bt here: https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/25/11-25-0958-00-0PQC-draft-p802-11bt-par.pdf

Russ

v2.40.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status