Thanks to the spell-checker, some choicy words got changed. In the text below in the order of appearance:
in -> I’m cheat -> clear (particularly nice one! AI must be reading mind instead of keyboard 😂) — Regards, Uri Secure Resilient Systems and Technologies MIT Lincoln Laboratory > On Apr 17, 2025, at 13:58, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL <u...@ll.mit.edu> > wrote: > > “Needlessly” - well, I guess in getting tired and irritated by the incessant > attempts of a cheat minority to override the choice the overwhelming majority > (which is what I call 75%-25% split) made. > > This group has been trying to reach consensus on “comparative riskiness” for > considerable time - and failed, so far. I see no reason to expect such > consensus miraculously appearing out of <where?>. Do you? If so, please > enlighten me. > > One reason hybrids add risks is the practical > implementation/deployment/processes/management/maintenance part, as opposed > to treating the issue as a pure mathematical formula - which deployed > software apparently is not (some might argue that it should be, I let the > reality speak for itself). > > Since It looks like 3/4 of the audience holds position similar to mine - > frankly, I don’t see why 3/4 must convince 1/4 that their position is valid > (usually, it’s the other way around). > — > Regards, > Uri > > Secure Resilient Systems and Technologies > MIT Lincoln Laboratory > >> On Apr 17, 2025, at 13:35, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> >> >>>> On 17/04/2025 18:23, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote: >>> Don’t try to stuff your perception of risks and correctness into >>> everybody else’s throat. >> >> Aside from the needlessly accusatory phrasing above, seeking to >> reach consensus on the comparative riskiness of these seems like >> a good plan to me, and entirely doable, so I disagree with you. >> >> I also note that you earlier declined to get into the gory >> detail of why you consider hybrids more risky. Arguing for >> inclusion of text reflecting the details (gory or otherwise) >> that have been aired in public seems entirely reasonable to >> me, so if people who prefer one position over another aren't >> willing to say why, they should IMO expect their positions >> to be less well reflected in draft/RFC text. >> >> Cheers, >> S. >> >> <OpenPGP_signature.asc> > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
