On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 10:08 AM Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 9:45 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> > wrote: >> >> >> Hi Joe, >> >> On 9/4/24 17:23, Joseph Salowey wrote: >> > The >> > current structure of the FATT does not allow for direct attribution of FATT >> > feedback to specific individuals. >> >> That "does not allow" seems odd to me. Say if all reviewers are fine >> with being accountable in the usual IETF manner, are you saying they >> still could not be identified? If so, something's broken with that >> process. >> > [Joe] As you say if all the reviewers are fine with being identified then > they could be identified in the usual manner. That is not the situation we > are in right now.
Because of a massive disaster that some people decided we needed to engage in out of a combination of (what in my admittedly biased view) was equal measures optimism, and a heubristic desire to do something we aren't good at to displace NIST from a perceived role it doesn't actually have, we antagonized a lot of people needlessly. A decade later and we still haven't been able to move past it. And just to make explicit: this working group decided to ask CFRG to do something that wasn't going to go well, and the results were worse than anticipated. Unless we acknowledge that we're not going to be able to come up with fixes. Sincerely, Watson Ladd -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
