The situation is actually somewhat the opposite here: the code points for these algorithms have already been assigned (go to https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-paramete... and search for draft-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement-05) and Chrome, at least, has it implemented behind a flag (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_fCHTJifii3ycIJIDw...).

The question at hand is whether the IETF will publish an Informational (i.e., non-standard) document defining pure-MLKEM in TLS or whether people will have to read the Internet-Draft currently associated with the code point.

> Just because a feature is standardized does not mean it gets implemented.

This makes no sense. If you think it actually had a high chance of remaining unimplemented it anyway then why not just concede the point and take it out? It sure looks like you're not fine with leaving it unimplemented, and you're doing this because you want it implemented, no? It makes no sense to die on that hill if you're gonna tell people it might not exist.

Also, how do you just completely ignore the fact that standards have been weakened in the past precisely to achieve their implementation? This isn't a hypothetical he's worried about, it has literally happened. You're just claiming it's false despite history blatantly showing the opposite because... why? Because trust me bro?