IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-08 (Ends 2026-07-08)

DA PIEVE Fabiana <Fabiana.DA-PIEVE@ec.europa.eu> Mon, 06 July 2026 05:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Fabiana.DA-PIEVE@ec.europa.eu>
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 48EA410F9F14E for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1783317492; bh=H5UgeBpqDl6FGGnC5RLqQ9OYOoSXzqE+WHhgdMnBHL0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date; b=zX+6Qt/a9p5qrh3YTILJtF2kNV+dAIwHSpaJ72DAOF93JJ/oTtmHZyxGS/4aPxe6A L0KOi97md+vmAUS1MrbQWbcYdm8UkpZ1VuuXaPrfE9CfGWUoRDhybGG+kyfkm7Gp+1 wV5MLOc/N9QDfftnQolxv6hUkRJOkLE7IOtHnRPM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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=ec.europa.eu
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 ohMfqBfz9113 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out.mail.ec.europa.eu (out.mail.ec.europa.eu [147.67.249.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B3D210F9F147 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2026 22:58:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=s2601; d=ec.europa.eu; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:content-type:mime-version; bh=H5UgeBpqDl6FGGnC5RLqQ9OYOoSXzqE+WHhgdMnBHL0=; b=y8Z57hqt62M604/4wZixgycgUOFXZ5rSIbH28RfcqnSkYmbJmcEz8kVv+yn9sv KLgeEwGEOxysZO8dpXEyQ4/vPHKYZl79KqFlRebFfyYXXeTomk3MOM/7QkkOjF Q97M2XDGZ+DstzQegpCZhfOIn4jYVlQOvCNWb7L5oSimNzF+ZpZULjc79uglx1 7PbvPJngZ+RvyCvSumtFKOik6nBPX90FrEPxHQT/Fni4G8jx7cYi36eUzAaOsB W1X9tet0t0PLGnwmpk0MAN0OOlvSp2OA0eX3w1z+z0XOdRQjtScZdp0MfHhsgv AHKQGUgdRVH8nf8AWUyKTSUtEi7lXiHw==
Received: from sp-exc-1704.welcome.ec.europa.eu (10.152.64.164) by sp-exc-ed111.rcnet.cec.eu.int (147.67.249.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.43; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 07:58:01 +0200
Received: from sp-exc-1704.welcome.ec.europa.eu (10.152.64.164) by sp-exc-1704.welcome.ec.europa.eu (10.152.64.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.2562.43; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 07:58:01 +0200
Received: from sp-exc-1704.welcome.ec.europa.eu ([10.152.64.164]) by sp-exc-1704.welcome.ec.europa.eu ([10.152.64.164]) with mapi id 15.02.2562.043; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 07:58:01 +0200
From: DA PIEVE Fabiana <Fabiana.DA-PIEVE@ec.europa.eu>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Re: [TLS] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-08 (Ends 2026-07-08)
Thread-Index: Ad0NB5pkpmG+lqHhTjeKn3870gwZaQ==
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 05:58:01 +0000
Message-ID: <eb06c07ca22a413c8a4f38ca6268e253@ec.europa.eu>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_ActionId=f602d9f1-a745-4d65-b384-3903e93acf80;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_ContentBits=0;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_Enabled=true;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_Method=Standard;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_Name=Commission Use;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_SetDate=2026-07-06T05:23:39Z;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_SiteId=b24c8b06-522c-46fe-9080-70926f8dddb1;MSIP_Label_6bd9ddd1-4d20-43f6-abfa-fc3c07406f94_Tag=10, 3, 0, 1;
x-originating-ip: [10.152.64.253]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_eb06c07ca22a413c8a4f38ca6268e253eceuropaeu_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: ZQZYDKSO7KXNIWXCN4MTFFJJXNUKYWEB
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZQZYDKSO7KXNIWXCN4MTFFJJXNUKYWEB
X-MailFrom: Fabiana.DA-PIEVE@ec.europa.eu
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
Subject: [TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-08 (Ends 2026-07-08)
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/GekHD5clZwcDAyMXEl17Q8D4z0g>
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>

Dear all

I do not support the publication of this document.

I already expressed my points in the past but allow me to say that some specific concerns I have on security (successful classical attacks on PQ algorithms) cannot be addressed in some few months, in any possible manner. I understand certain people are becoming increasingly worried by an accelerated arrival of a CRQC, but I am also worried of things that can happen (and has already happened) in the meantime.

Given the considerable and excellent work already done to deploy hybrid ML-KEM, I think taking advantage of such work at maximum is a reasonable thing to do.

Moreover, to be honest even the mere publication of an RFC actually saying that something else is preferred seems a weak strategy in this critical moment of the cryptographic transition where many are still preparing, and even more importantly it might well also raise questions in the head of several people out there, given the relevance of the transition to PQC to many different actors, different vendors and others.

I do not think it is yet the time to have RFCs with specifications that one should not use by default.

Thank you for your kind attention
Fabiana
Team Leader Post-Quantum Cryptography

European Commission
DG Communications Networks, Content and Technology
Unit C4 – Emerging & Disruptive Technologies

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