Internet-Draft PQC Recommendations for Applications March 2024
Reddy Expires 3 September 2024 [Page]
Intended Status:
Standards Track
T. Reddy

Post-Quantum Cryptography Recommendations for Internet Applications


Post-quantum cryptography brings some new challenges to applications, end users, and system administrators. This document describes characteristics unique to application protocols and best practices for deploying Quantum-Ready usage profiles for applications using TLS.

About This Document

This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

Status information for this document may be found at

Discussion of this document takes place on the uta Working Group mailing list (, which is archived at Subscribe at

Status of This Memo

This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at

Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

This Internet-Draft will expire on 3 September 2024.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

The visible face of the Internet largely consists of services that employ a client-server architecture in which a client communicates with an application service. When a client communicates with an application service using protocols such as TLS 1.3 [RFC8446], DTLS 1.3 [RFC9147], or a protocol built on those (QUIC [RFC9001] being a notable example), the client and server can perform ephemeral public-key exchange mechanism, such as ECDH, to derive the shared secret for forward secrecy. They can validate each other's identity using X.509 certificates to establish secure communication.

The presence of a Cryptographically Relevant Quantum Computer (CRQC) would render state-of-the-art, traditional public-key algorithms deployed today obsolete and insecure, since the assumptions about the intractability of the mathematical problems for these algorithms that offer confident levels of security today no longer apply in the presence of a CRQC. This means there is a requirement to update protocols and infrastructure to use post-quantum algorithms, which are public-key algorithms designed to be secure against CRQCs as well as classical computers. The traditional cryptographic primitives that need to be replaced by PQC are discussed in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers].

The industry has successfully upgraded TLS versions while deprecating old versions (e.g., SSLv2), and many protocols have transitioned from RSA to Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) improving security while also reducing key sizes. The transition to post-quantum crypto brings different challenges, most significantly, the new Post-Quantum algorithms:

  1. are still being evaluated against both classical and post-quantum attacks,

  2. typically use larger key sizes (which increases handshake packet size). For example, the public key sizes of ML-KEM is much larger than ECDH (see Table 5 in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]) and the public key sizes of Dilithium/Falcon are much larger than P256 (see Table 6 in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]), and

  3. While certain post-quantum (PQ) algorithms are comparatively slower than their traditional counterparts, it's important to note that specific PQ algorithms also showcase faster performance. For instance, ML-KEM utilizes less CPU than X25519, and both Dilithium and Falcon exhibit faster signature verification times than Ed25519, although with slower signature generation times.

All applications transmitting messages over untrusted networks can be susceptible to active or passive attacks by adversaries using CRQCs, with varying degrees of significance for both users and the underlying systems. This document explores Quantum-Ready usage profiles for applications specifically designed to defend against passive and on-path attacks employing CRQCs. TLS client and server implementations, as well as applications, can mitigate the impact of these challenges through various techniques described in subsequent sections.

2. Conventions and Definitions

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here.

This document uses terms defined in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology]. For the purposes of this document, it is helpful to be able to divide cryptographic algorithms into three classes:

"Traditional Algorithm": An asymmetric cryptographic algorithm based on integer factorisation, finite field discrete logarithms or elliptic curve discrete logarithms. In the context of TLS, examples of traditional key exchange algorithms include Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH); which is almost always used in the ephemeral mode referred to as Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral (ECDHE).

"Post-Quantum Algorithm": An asymmetric cryptographic algorithm that is believed to be secure against attacks using quantum computers as well as classical computers. Examples of PQC key exchange algorithms include the Module-Lattice Key Encapsulation Mechanism (ML-KEM), which is widely known as Kyber.

"Hybrid" key exchange, in this context, means the use of two component key exchange algorithms -- one traditional algorithm and one Post-Quantum algorithm. The final shared secret key is secure when at least one of the component key exchange algorithms remains unbroken. It is referred to as PQ/T Hybrid Scheme in [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology].

The same categories also apply to digital signature algorithms as used in X.509 certificates, Certificate Transparency SCTs, OCSP statements, Remote Attestations, and any other mechanism that contributes signatures to a TLS handshake.

3. Timeline for transition

The timeline and driving motivation for Quantum-Ready transition differ between data confidentiality and data authentication (e.g., signature). Digital signatures are used within X.509 certificates, Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs), and to sign messages.

Encrypted payloads transmitted via Transport Layer Security (TLS) can be susceptible to decryption if an attacker equipped with a CRQC gains access to the traditional asymmetric public keys used in the TLS key exchange and the transmitted ciphertext. TLS implementations commonly utilize Diffie-Hellman schemes for key exchange. If an attacker has copies of an entire set of encrypted payloads, including the TLS setup, it could employ CRQCs to potentially decrypt the payload by determining the private key.

For data confidentiality, we are concerned with the so-called "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attack where a malicious actor with adequate resources can launch an attack to store encrypted data today that can be decrypted once a CRQC is available. This implies that, even today, encrypted data is susceptible to the attack by not implementing quantum-safe strategies, as it corresponds to data being deciphered in the future. The storage time and effective security lifetime of this encrypted data might vary from seconds to decades.

For data authentication, our concern lies with an on-path attacker who possesses devices equipped with CRQCs capable of breaking traditional authentication protocols. For instance, the attacker can fake the identity of the target, leading victims to connect to the attacker's device instead of connecting to the actual target, resulting in an impersonation attack. While not an immediate threat, it is still a concern when compared to the 'Harvest Now, Decrypt Later' attack.

In client/server certificate-based authentication, it's common for the certificate's signature in the TLS handshake to have a short lifetime. This means that the time between the certificate signing the CertificateVerify message and its verification by the peer during the TLS handshake is limited. However, it's worth questioning the security lifetime of the digital signatures on X.509 certificates, including those issued by root Certificate Authorities (CAs). Root CAs can have lifetimes of 20 years or more. Additionally, root Certificate Revocation Lists (CRLs) may have lifetimes of a year or more, while delegated credentials like CRL Signing Certificates or OCSP response signing certificates can have lifetimes that fall anywhere in between.

4. Data Confidentiality

Data in transit may need to be protected for lifetimes measured in years. The possibility of CRQCs being developed means that we need to move away from traditional algorithms, but at the same time uncertainty about post-quantum algorithm implementation security, lag in standardization, regulatory requirements, and maturity of cryptanalysis may require the continued use of mature traditional algorithms alongside the new post-quantum primitives.

The primary goal of a hybrid key exchange mechanism is to facilitate the establishment of a shared secret which remains secure as long as one of the component key exchange mechanisms remains unbroken.

[I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design] provides a construction for hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3. It fulfils the primary goal of hybrid key exchange, with additional objectives discussed in Section 1.5 of the same document.

Applications that use (D)TLS and susceptible to CRQC attack MUST migrate to (D)TLS 1.3 and support the hybrid key exchange, as defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design]. In the future, we anticipate a shift away from traditional cryptographic algorithms in favor of post-quantum algorithms. This transition is expected to provide benefits in terms of CPU efficiency and reduced data transmission overhead compared to hybrid key exchange.

The client initiates the TLS handshake by sending a list of key agreement methods it supports in the key_share extension. One of the challenges during the PQC migration is that the client may not know whether the server supports the Hybrid key exchange. To address this uncertainty, the client can adopt one of two strategies:

  1. Sending Both Traditional and Hybrid Key Exchange Algorithms: In the initial ClientHello message, the client has the option to send both traditional and hybrid key exchange algorithm key shares to the server, eliminating the need for multiple round trips. It's important to note that the size of the hybrid key exchange algorithm key share may exceed the MTU, leading to the possibility of splitting the ClientHello message across multiple packets. However, this approach necessitates additional computations on the client side and results in increased handshake traffic. During the TLS handshake, the server responds to the ClientHello by providing its public key and ciphertext. If the combined size of these components exceeds the MTU, there's a chance that the ServerHello message may be fragmented across multiple TCP packets. This fragmentation raises the risk of lost packets and potential delays due to retransmission.

  2. Indicate Support for Hybrid Key Exchange: Alternatively, the client may initially indicate support for hybrid key exchange and send a traditional key exchange algorithm key share in the first ClientHello message. If the server supports hybrid key exchange, it will use the HelloRetryRequest to request a hybrid key exchange algorithm key share from the client. The client can then send the hybrid key exchange algorithm key share in the second ClientHello message.

Clients MAY use information from completed handshakes to cache the server's preferences for key exchange algorithms ([RFC8446], section 4.2.7).

In order to avoid multiple packets to send ClientHello message, the client would have to prevent the duplication of PQC KEM public key shares in the ClientHello, avoiding duplication of key shares is discussed in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design].

[I-D.davidben-tls-key-share-prediction] defines a mechanism for servers to communicate key share preferences in DNS responses. TLS clients can use this information to reduce TLS handshake round-trips.

5. Authentication

While CRQCs could decrypt previous TLS sessions, client/server authentication based on certificates cannot be retroactively broken. However, given the multi-year lead-time required to establish, certify, and embed new root CAs, it would be difficult to react in a timely manner if CRQCs come online sooner than anticipated. So while PQ migration of X.509 certificates has more time than key exchanges, we should not delay this work for too long.

The Quantum-Ready authentication property can be utilized in scenarios where an on-path attacker possesses network devices equipped with CRQCs, capable of breaking traditional authentication protocols. If an attacker uses CRQC to determine the private key of a server certificate before the certificate expiry, the attacker can create a fake server, and then every user will think that their connection is legitimate. The server impersonation leads to various security threats, including impersonation, data disclosure, and the interception of user data and communications.

The Quantum-Ready authentication property ensures authentication through either a pure Post-Quantum or a PQ/T hybrid Certificate.

To decide whether and when to support a Post-Quantum Certificate (PQC) or a PQ/T hybrid scheme for client and server authentication, it is important to consider factors such as the frequency and duration of system upgrades, as well as the anticipated availability of CRQCs. For example, applications that have extremely short key lifetimes -- for example less than an hour -- may decide that it is an acceptable risk to leave those on Traditional algorithms for the foreseeable future under the assumption that quantum key factoring attacks take longer to run than the key lifetimes. It may be advantageous to explore heterogeneous PKI architectures where the long-lived CAs are using Post-Quantum algorithms but the server and client certificates are not. In summary, if the signature is not post-quantum secure, further evaluation is needed to determine whether the attempt to achieve post-quantum security using short-lived keys is effective or not.

6. Informing Users of PQC Security Compatibility Issues

When the server detects that the client doesn't support PQC or hybrid key exchange, it can send an 'insufficient_security' fatal alert to the client. The client can inform the end-users that the server they are trying to access requires a level of security that the client cannot provide due to the lack of PQC support. Furthermore, the client may log the event for diagnostic and security auditing purposes and report the security-related issue to the client development team.

Similarly, when the client detects that the server doesn't support PQC or hybrid key exchange, it can send an alert or error page to the client. The message can inform the end-user that the server is not compatible with the PQC security features offered by the client.

7. Application Protocols

7.1. Encrypted DNS

The privacy risks for end users exchanging DNS messages in clear text are discussed in [RFC7518]. Transport Layer Security (TLS) is employed to ensure privacy for DNS. DNS encryption provided by TLS (e.g., DNS-over-HTTPS, DNS-over-TLS, DNS-over-QUIC) eliminates opportunities for eavesdropping and on-path tampering while in transit through the network.

Encrypted DNS messages transmitted using Transport Layer Security (TLS) may be vulnerable to decryption if an attacker gains access to the traditional asymmetric public keys used in the TLS key exchange. If an attacker possesses copies of an entire set of encrypted DNS messages, including the TLS setup, it could use a CRQC to potentially decrypt the message content by determining the ephemeral key exchange private key.

Encrypted DNS protocols will have to support the Quantum-Ready usage profile discussed in {#confident}.

Note that post-quantum security of DNSSEC [RFC9364], which provides authenticity for DNS records, is a separate issue from the requirements for encrypted DNS transports.

7.2. Hybrid public-key encryption (HPKE)

Hybrid public-key encryption (HPKE) is a scheme that provides public key encryption of arbitrary-sized plaintexts given a recipient's public key. HPKE utilizes a non-interactive ephemeral-static Diffie-Hellman exchange to establish a shared secret. The motivation for standardizing a public key encryption scheme is explained in the introduction of [RFC9180].

HPKE can be extended to support PQ/T Hybrid post-quantum Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs) as defined in [I-D.westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02]. Kyber, which is a KEM does not support the static-ephemeral key exchange that allows HPKE based on DH based KEMs. Note that X25519Kyber768Draft00 is IND-CCA2 secure (Section 4 of [I-D.westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02]).

7.2.1. Interaction with Encrypted Client Hello

Client TLS libraries and applications can use Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) [I-D.ietf-tls-esni] to prevent passive observation of the intended server identity in the TLS handshake which requires also deploying Encrypted DNS (DNS over TLS), otherwise a passive listener can observe DNS queries (or responses) and infer same server identity that was being protected with ECH. ECH uses HPKE for public key encryption.

ECH MUST incorporate support for PQ/T Hybrid post-quantum KEMs to protect against the 'Harvest Now, Decrypt Later' attack.

To use ECH the client needs to learn the ECH configuration for a server before it attempts a connection to the server. Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings specification [I-D.draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech] provides a mechanism for conveying the ECH configuration information via DNS, using a SVCB or HTTPS record. The "ech" SvcParamKey is used in SVCB or HTTPS or DNS records, and is intended to serve as the primary bootstrap mechanism for ECH. The value of the parameter is an ECHConfigList (Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-esni]). The public_key in HpkeKeyConfig structure would carry the concatenation of traditional and PQC KEM public keys which would increase DNS resposnse size that could exceed the path MTU. It would require the use of reliable transport and Encrypted DNS (e.g., DoT, DoH or DoQ).

7.2.2. Oblivious HTTP

Oblivious HTTP [I-D.ietf-ohai-ohttp] allows clients to encrypt messages exchanged with an Oblivious Target Resource (target). The messages are encapsulated in encrypted messages to an Oblivious Gateway Resource (gateway), which offers Oblivious HTTP access to the target. The gateway is accessed via an Oblivious Relay Resource (relay), which proxies the encapsulated messages to hide the identity of the client. Overall, this architecture is designed in such a way that the relay cannot inspect the contents of messages, and the gateway and target cannot learn the client's identity from a single transaction. Oblivious HTTP uses HPKE for encapsulating binary HTTP messages to protect their contents.

Oblivious HTTP is vulnerable to decryption if an attacker gains access to the traditional asymmetric public keys used in the HPKE. If an attacker possesses copies of an entire set of encapsulated HTTP messages, it could use CRQC to potentially decrypt the message content by determining the private key. The attacker can potentially be the Oblivious Relay Resource.

The "ohttp" SvcParamKey defined in [I-D.ietf-ohai-svcb-config] is used to indicate that a service described in an SVCB RR can be accessed as a target using an associated gateway. For the "dns" scheme, as defined in [I-D.draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns], the presence of the "ohttp" parameter means that the DNS server being described has a DNS over HTTP (DoH) [RFC8484] service that can be accessed using Oblivious HTTP.

Oblivious HTTP and DNS over Oblivious HTTP MUST incorporate support for PQ/T Hybrid post-quantum KEMs to protect against the 'Harvest Now, Decrypt Later' attack.

7.2.3. MLS

The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) Protocol [RFC9420] enables asynchronous group keying with forward secrecy and post-compromise security. MLS uses HPKE for public key encryption. HPKE can be extended to support PQ/T Hybrid post-quantum Key Encapsulation Mechanisms (KEMs) as defined in [I-D.westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02].

7.3. WebRTC

In WebRTC, secure channels are set up via DTLS and DTLS-SRTP [RFC5763] keying for SRTP [RFC3711] for media channels and the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) over DTLS [RFC8261] for data channels.

Secure channels may be vulnerable to decryption if an attacker gains access to the traditional asymmetric public keys used in the DTLS key exchange. If an attacker possesses copies of an entire set of encrypted media, including the DTLS setup, it could use CRQC to potentially decrypt the media by determining the private key.

WebRTC media and data channels MUST support the Quantum-Ready usage profile discussed in {#confident}.

The other challenge with WebRTC is that PQC KEMs often come with large public keys and PQC Signature schemes come with large signatures in comparison with traditional algorithms (as discussed in Section 12 and 13 of [I-D.ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers]). In many cases, UDP datagrams are restricted to sizes smaller than 1500 bytes. If IP fragmentation needs to be avoided, each DTLS handshake message must be fragmented over several DTLS records, with each record intended to fit within a single UDP datagram. This approach could potentially lead to increased time to complete the DTLS handshake and involve multiple round-trips in lossy networks. It may also extend the time required to set up secure WebRTC channels. One potential mitigation strategy to avoid the delay is to prevent the duplication PQC KEM public key shares in the ClientHello, avoiding duplication of key shares is discussed in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-tls-hybrid-design].

7.4. HTTPS

HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) is the secure version of HTTP used for secure data exchange over the web. HTTPS primarily relies on the TLS (Transport Layer Security) protocol to provide encryption, integrity, and authenticity for data in transit.

HTTP messages transmitted using Transport Layer Security (TLS) may be vulnerable to decryption if an attacker gains access to the traditional asymmetric public keys used in the TLS key exchange. If an attacker possesses copies of an entire set of encrypted HTTP messages, including the TLS setup, it could use CRQC to potentially decrypt the message content by determining the private key. This traffic can include sensitive information, such as login credentials, personal data, or financial details, depending on the nature of the communication.

If an attacker can decrypt the message content before the expiry of the login credentials, the attacker can steal the credentials. The theft of login credentials is a serious security concern that can have a wide range of consequences for individuals and organizations. The most immediate and obvious challenge is that the attacker gains unauthorized access to the victim's accounts, systems, or data. This can lead to data breaches, privacy violations, and various forms of cybercrime.

Applications using HTTPS to exchange sensitive data MUST support the Quantum-Ready usage profile discussed in {#confident}. If the data is genuinely non-sensitive and has no privacy or security implications, the motivation for an attacker to invest resources in capturing and later decrypting it would likely be very low. In such cases, the "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attack may not be relevant. In similar lines, reverse proxies operated between clients and origin servers will also have to support {#confident}.

7.5. Email Submission

Email often contains information that needs protection from passive monitoring or active modification. While some standards exist for protecting integrity and for encrypting content of messages themselves (see [RFC8551]), transport encryption is also frequently used. TLS support for Email Submission/Access is described in Section 3.3 of [RFC8314]. The Mail User Agent (MUA) and a Mail Submission Server or Mail Access Server MUST support the Quantum-Ready usage profile discussed in {#confident}.

8. Security Considerations

Post-quantum algorithms selected for standardization are relatively new and they they have not been subject to the same depth of study as traditional algorithms. PQC implementations will also be new and therefore more likely to contain implementation bugs than the battle-tested crypto implementations that we rely on today. In addition, certain deployments may need to retain traditional algorithms due to regulatory constraints, for example FIPS [SP-800-56C] or PCI compliance. Hybrid key exchange enables potential security against "Harvest Now, Decrypt Later" attack provide for time to react in the case of the announcement of a devastating attack against any one algorithm, while not fully abandoning traditional cryptosystems.

Implementing PQ/T hybrid schemes improperly can introduce security issues at the cryptographic layer, for example how the Traditional and PQ schemes are combined; at the algorithm selection layer, mismatched security levels for example if 192-bit KEM is used with a 128-bit secure combiner; or at the protocol layer in how the upgrade/downgrade mechanism works. PQ/T hybrid schemes should be implemented carefully and all relevant specifications implemented correctly.


Thanks to Dan Wing for suggesting wider document scope. Thanks to Mike Ounsworth, Scott Fluhrer, Bas Westerbaan and Thom Wiggers for review and feedback.


Normative References

Benjamin, D., "TLS Key Share Prediction", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-davidben-tls-key-share-prediction-00, , <>.
Schwartz, B. M., "Service Binding Mapping for DNS Servers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-add-svcb-dns-09, , <>.
Stebila, D., Fluhrer, S., and S. Gueron, "Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design-09, , <>.
Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, , <>.
Baugher, M., McGrew, D., Naslund, M., Carrara, E., and K. Norrman, "The Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)", RFC 3711, DOI 10.17487/RFC3711, , <>.
Fischl, J., Tschofenig, H., and E. Rescorla, "Framework for Establishing a Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP) Security Context Using Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)", RFC 5763, DOI 10.17487/RFC5763, , <>.
Jones, M., "JSON Web Algorithms (JWA)", RFC 7518, DOI 10.17487/RFC7518, , <>.
Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, , <>.
Tuexen, M., Stewart, R., Jesup, R., and S. Loreto, "Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Encapsulation of SCTP Packets", RFC 8261, DOI 10.17487/RFC8261, , <>.
Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, , <>.
Hoffman, P. and P. McManus, "DNS Queries over HTTPS (DoH)", RFC 8484, DOI 10.17487/RFC8484, , <>.
Sullivan, N., "Exported Authenticators in TLS", RFC 9261, DOI 10.17487/RFC9261, , <>.

Informative References

Schwartz, B. M., Bishop, M., and E. Nygren, "Bootstrapping TLS Encrypted ClientHello with DNS Service Bindings", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-00, , <>.
Becker, A., Guthrie, R., and M. J. Jenkins, "Related Certificates for Use in Multiple Authentications within a Protocol", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-cert-binding-for-multi-auth-03, , <>.
Massimo, J., Kampanakis, P., Turner, S., and B. Westerbaan, "Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure: Algorithm Identifiers for ML-DSA", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-lamps-dilithium-certificates-03, , <>.
Thomson, M. and C. A. Wood, "Oblivious HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ohai-ohttp-10, , <>.
Pauly, T. and T. Reddy.K, "Discovery of Oblivious Services via Service Binding Records", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-ohai-svcb-config-07, , <>.
Banerjee, A., Reddy.K, T., Schoinianakis, D., and T. Hollebeek, "Post-Quantum Cryptography for Engineers", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pquip-pqc-engineers-03, , <>.
D, F., "Terminology for Post-Quantum Traditional Hybrid Schemes", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-pquip-pqt-hybrid-terminology-02, , <>.
Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf-tls-esni-17, , <>.
Ounsworth, M., Gray, J., Pala, M., and J. Klaußner, "Composite Signatures For Use In Internet PKI", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ounsworth-pq-composite-sigs-12, , <>.
Westerbaan, B. and C. A. Wood, "X25519Kyber768Draft00 hybrid post-quantum KEM for HPKE", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-westerbaan-cfrg-hpke-xyber768d00-02, , <>.
Moore, K. and C. Newman, "Cleartext Considered Obsolete: Use of Transport Layer Security (TLS) for Email Submission and Access", RFC 8314, DOI 10.17487/RFC8314, , <>.
Schaad, J., Ramsdell, B., and S. Turner, "Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME) Version 4.0 Message Specification", RFC 8551, DOI 10.17487/RFC8551, , <>.
Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, , <>.
Rescorla, E., Tschofenig, H., and N. Modadugu, "The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3", RFC 9147, DOI 10.17487/RFC9147, , <>.
Barnes, R., Bhargavan, K., Lipp, B., and C. Wood, "Hybrid Public Key Encryption", RFC 9180, DOI 10.17487/RFC9180, , <>.
Hoffman, P., "DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC)", BCP 237, RFC 9364, DOI 10.17487/RFC9364, , <>.
Barnes, R., Beurdouche, B., Robert, R., Millican, J., Omara, E., and K. Cohn-Gordon, "The Messaging Layer Security (MLS) Protocol", RFC 9420, DOI 10.17487/RFC9420, , <>.
"Recommendation for Key-Derivation Methods in Key-Establishment Schemes", <>.

Author's Address

Tirumaleswar Reddy