> “People are already doing it, so we might as well rubber-stamp it even if it’s not great” introduces problems of its own: people will perceive that rubber-stamping as validating it, and now they’ll use it even more, where perhaps if you held back, they wouldn’t.
The GOST cipher, which is Russia's AES equivalent, is also in an RFC:
The GOST document is categorized in the same way as the one currently being debated/discussed: Informational. It also has "N" under the "Recommended" column (like ML-KEM-only will have):
The GOST cipher, which is Russia's AES equivalent, is also in an RFC:
* https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9189
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOST_(block_cipher)
Is the IETF validating its use?
The GOST document is categorized in the same way as the one currently being debated/discussed: Informational. It also has "N" under the "Recommended" column (like ML-KEM-only will have):
* https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-paramete...