Hi Dan, Draft adoption is based on rough consensus, not unanimous consent. As I'm sure you're aware, RFC 7282 states that all objections do not need to be accommodated for rough consensus to be achieved. In particular, the IETF values running code, which this draft represents. It sounds like you're advocating that your objections should be treated as a veto. Can you help me understand why you think the chairs did not account for your opinion?
Thanks in advance, -dadrian On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 3:54 PM D. J. Bernstein <d...@cr.yp.to> wrote: > 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 -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
