The IETF TLS chairs have now issued a "last call" for objections to non-hybrid signatures in TLS. Do they admit that their previous "last call" re non-hybrid KEMs ended up with a _majority_ in opposition, and that many opposition statements obviously also apply to signatures? No.

@djb

Why do they want non-hybrid KEMs and signatures, anyway? Seems like a bad idea to protect all of everything with nothing but unproven crypto.

@argv_minus_one I have an introductory chart https://blog.cr.yp.to/20260221-structure.html showing the arguments and counterarguments.

Most common argument from proponents: NSA is asking for non-hybrids, ergo support non-hybrids. This argument works for (1) companies chasing NSA money, (2) companies that take any excuse for extra options as a barrier to entry for competitors, and (3) people who think that "NSA Cybersecurity" isn't a conduit for https://www.eff.org/files/2014/04/09/20130905-guard-sigint_enabling.pdf but rather an independent pro-security agency.

@darkuncle Sorry to see you promoting this. He's done great work, but this whole thread is crazy conspiracy thinking.
@djb @darkuncle no I do not, but that does not mean that the NSA is corrupting the IETF.
@rsalz @darkuncle Let me see if I understand. You're agreeing that NSA has a large budget to sabotage "standards and specification for commercial public key technologies" etc., but you presume that this doesn't include IETF, since the document doesn't _specifically_ name IETF? Also, just checking: by the same logic, you presume that this doesn't include ISO? NIST? IEEE? When we recommend proactive steps to protect SDOs against sabotage, you accuse us of being crazy conspiracy theorists?
@djb @darkuncle I presumed nothing. Read what I wrote. Twisting words to win an argument. Your better than this Dan.

@rsalz

Do you have another explanation for the inexplicable push for the IETF to specify non-hybrid ML-KEM?

I looked at the list of arguments compiled by @djb at https://blog.cr.yp.to/20260221-structure.html and I don't see any particularly compelling argument in favor of such a move. Nor can I think of one myself. Certainly nothing to justify going full speed ahead like this.

@darkuncle