IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Last-Call] Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-mldsa-03.txt> (Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3) to Informational RFC

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Wed, 03 June 2026 12:52 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
X-Original-To: last-call@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: last-call@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53619FA08209 for <last-call@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 05:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1780491133; bh=ScuZqxz3vG2QUpk50kJc3ZsI2bAnWaniYtIF7pxjnEw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=PqCyj3e+a4nbMxQjxWoGiM9sLAhra2rPsFNm7YZROkvztCQw5iZeEhG7bhs7+ALw0 nIam4fqsfAKqAumFBaf8LvN44xt1KjQIyfpvKCwT6fPF1ddbLgvyuQ3C0NSMZMJZyl QOnR6F+/O4B+viFDWzOWh/Ssr1CRoCOXP+aYsaIk=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 iLOo-YmeN94I for <last-call@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 05:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1617FA080BF for <last-call@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2026 05:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 935175 invoked by uid 1010); 3 Jun 2026 12:50:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 3 Jun 2026 12:50:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 2336436 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Jun 2026 12:50:27 -0000
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 12:50:26 -0000
Message-ID: <20260603125026.2336434.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: Filippo Valsorda <filippo@ml.filippo.io>, tls@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: tls@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <cffaa2fb-a82a-4bef-b333-51d7ee90ec6c@app.fastmail.com>
Message-ID-Hash: ZWX6I7DAHMHY3MRS6HLXHZL7NAWJ6M6E
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZWX6I7DAHMHY3MRS6HLXHZL7NAWJ6M6E
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Last-Call] Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-mldsa-03.txt> (Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3) to Informational RFC
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <last-call.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/0I9UNWRaMi77sjMPuG75X9c6M1c>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/last-call>
List-Help: <mailto:last-call-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:last-call-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:last-call@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:last-call-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:last-call-leave@ietf.org>

Filippo Valsorda writes:
> all easy to find

Sorry, I still don't understand what you meant in claiming that there
will be "exceedingly few bugs" in ML-DSA software. How many bugs and how
many severe vulnerabilities are you estimating? Where are you getting
these numbers from?

Since your posting said that "a single broken key per month can be
catastrophic" and that a disaster chance above 1% is unacceptable since
"you are betting with your users' lives", I _think_ you're claiming that
there's a >99% chance that there are zero severe vulnerabilities in the
entire ML-DSA software ecosystem. But I'd appreciate a clear statement
so that I'm sure I'm not misunderstanding something.

---D. J. Bernstein


===== NOTICES =====

IETF BCP 78, "Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", Section 5
(normative), "Rights in Contributions", provides a modification right
"unless explicitly disallowed in the notices contained in a Contribution
(in the form specified by the Legend Instructions)".

The official language from IETF's "Legend Instructions" for the
situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications nor
to allow publication as an RFC" is as follows: "This document may not be
modified, and derivative works of it may not be created, and it may not
be published except as an Internet-Draft."
<https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf>

The same language is used in, e.g., RFC 5831. The same language hereby
applies to this document. This is not disclaiming or limiting the
applicability of IETF policies; it is strictly following IETF policies.

IESG claims that the "explicitly disallowed" provision in BCP 78 is
limited to the examples in Section 3 in BCP 78. That is incorrect. BCP
78 states that Section 5, "Rights in Contributions", is normative, while
Section 3, "Exposition of Why These Procedures Are the Way They Are", is
informative. The opt-out provision in the normative text is clear, and
cannot be limited by an informative section. BCP 78 does not give IESG
any authority to issue changes or purported clarifications of the rules.

Rationale for exercising the BCP 78 opt-out provision: I'm fine with
redistribution of copies of this document. The issue is instead with
modification, such as (1) IESG's May 2025 posting of an IESG-mangled
version of an appeal that I had filed and (2) IETF management selling
IETF mailing-list text to AI companies. This goes far beyond what
copyright law allows as fair use (such as giving quotes for purposes of
commentary). When I complained about the mangled document, the IETF
Executive Director responded not by apologizing but instead by asserting
that IETF management "has a license" to do anything it wants.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status