[TLS] Re: SSLKEYLOGFILE vs pure-ML-KEM

Thanks! (And to David and Benjamin as well; I can see the daylight between
those cases now.)

Mike

On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 2:14 PM Rob Sayre <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 6:13 AM Mike Shaver <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> (Apologies if this has been raised in the WGLC thread; I tried to catch
>> up there, but there is...a lot.)
>>
>> I'm curious how the list feels about similarities between the decision to
>> standardize SSLKEYLOGFILE and the choice ahead of the IETF regarding
>> standalone ML-KEM.
>>
>
> Well, it was a process mistake. The SSLKEYLOGFILE document should have
> gone to the ISE. It is an almost textbook case. But I think most people
> didn't want to spend time arguing about log files on the internet.
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc-independent-submissions/
>
> And we do use this mechanism:
>
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9150/
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc9189/
>
> Those hit all of your bullet points. They don't get is this text:
>
> "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
> It represents the consensus of the IETF community. It has received public
> review and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering
> Steering Group (IESG)."
>
> thanks,
> Rob
>
>

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]