I am sorry for interrupting your argument, but as you are discussing this on-list:
> My previous email explained the obvious way the consensus was validly called.
> This
> can be independently verified by anyone reading the email thread. The
> fact that you are the only one questioning the consensus should be an
> indication that your reasoning to doubt the consensus call might in fact
> be erroneous.
He is not the only one. Using the independently verifiable mail thread, I
actually did count by a rough look over the messages (sorry if I
missed/misinterpreted someone):
Pro Adoption:
- Alicja Kario
- Andrei Popov
- David Adrian
- Filippo Valsorda
- Flo D
- Jan Schaumann
- John Mattson
- Joseph Birr-Pixton
- Kris Kwiatkowski
- Loganaden Velvindron
- Martin Thomson
- Quynh Dang
- Rebecca Guthrie
- Russ Housley
- Scott Fluhrer
- Sophie Schmieg
- Thom Wiggers
- Tirumal Reddy
- Uri Blumenthal
- Viktor Dukhovni
- Yaakov Stein
- Yaroslav Rosomakho
Against Adoption:
- Andrey Jivsov
- Dan Bernstein
- Rich Salz
- Rob Sayre
- Stephen Farrell
- Sun Shuzhou
- Thomas Bellebaum
I am counting 22 expressions in favor of adoption and 7 opposing adoption.
This amounts to about every fourth person objecting the draft in its current
state at this time, which seems more than can be explained by mere blocking of
few individuals.
I am not questioning that this is a sound majority, but consensus is a harsh
word.
Neither am I threatening to appeal, but I do share the view that merely
declaring concerns such as "hybrids are way more conservative" as
hypothetical/irrelevant to whether or not to publish this is not a reasonable
way forward. The feeling (I am not saying "the fact") of this happening is
valid.
However, openly accusing others of playing games or ignoring procedures does
not result in good specifications.
Raised points should be discussed and adequately addressed to reach a consensus
(i.e. significantly better than 3 out of 4). We are not making a black-or-white
decision on publishing or not, we are influencing many aspects of the document.
Going forward with the new WG item, here is my current wishlist:
- Much discussion stems from an insufficient understanding of the
considerations leading so many to believe that pure-PQ algorithms are the
better choice compared to hybrids, be that harsh requirements ("users that need
to be fully post-quantum" -> Why? Regulations?) or implementation
considerations (e.g. "minimalist code base"). Please collect and document them
(preferably inside the document) so that we can reason about concrete
requirements and applications rather than hearsay and hypotheticals.
- Give some guidance to implementations as to whether or not this should be
implemented and/or available at runtime. Is this just for those with special
considerations mentioned above? If so, consider recommended=D or Experimental
to convey this. Or is this for general purpose use by all sorts of
applications? If so, document how the considerations above apply to them and
discuss the relation to hybrid constructions.
-- TBB
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
