Sean Turner writes: > Hi! It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working > group item.
Um, what? There were several people (including me) raising objections on list to basic flaws in this draft, such as (1) the failure to provide an ECC backup to limit the damage from further security problems in the PQ layer, (2) the failure to provide an engineering justification for this option, and (3) the lack of any principles that would justify saying no to options selected by other governments if this option is allowed. Your message doesn't explain how you came to the conclusion that there's consensus. Surely you aren't relying on some tally of positive votes to ram this document through while ignoring objections; voting isn't how IETF is supposed to work. So how _did_ you come to this conclusion? As a procedural matter, this lack of explanation is in violation of "IETF activities are conducted with extreme transparency, in public forums". Please rectify this violation immediately. Also, please state the procedures for appealing your action. Thanks in advance. ---D. J. Bernstein _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
