Astra mortemque praestare gradatim On Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 11:50 AM Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > > > I'm encountering some concerning conduct from the AD regarding my > blocking objection. > > As other people explained to you, "blocking objection" is not a > thing. Please read RFC 2026. As such, I did not think this part needed > further explanations. > Nadim is not the only one with this same serious technical doubt as to the rationale for publication. The TLS WG made significant changes to how the registry operates to avoid exactly the disputes we're seeing now. This apparently didn't work because some people think they need RFCs when they don't. To be clear I oppose publication as I don't think there's rough consensus and I think it's not required to achieve the desired end state in the registry while furthering confusion about what RFCs means and undoing the work this WG tried to do to avoid this confusion. Rough consensus is not an excuse to override serious objections with no explanation. > > I've so far continued to receive off-list emails from the AD despite > repeated explicit requests that they stop emailing me off-list and > acknowledge my objection on-list, as well as address their inaccurate > summary of [2]. > > > > The explanation provided by the AD to me (off-list, despite my explicit > lack of consent) amounted to the following: > > You did not quote other relevant context in the offlist email chain. For > one, it started with: > > Sending this off list because there are already way too many off > topic > emails in this thread.... > > I then explained how chartering works. You replied with an email that > switched context completely: > > I’m still very concerned about your incorrect summarizing of > [2] as submitted in my blocking objection, and note that you > haven’t acknowledged my blocking objection as I requested or > clarified your potential misrepresentation. > > I would sincerely appreciate it if you could please address that > instead > of sending me off list emails asking me how I think standards are > made. > > I replied: > > The paragraph above the one you quoted gives the context > you are looking > for, hence I figured it did not need an on list reply to an > already busy mail thread with lots of off topic or uninformed > input. > > [...] > > You replied: > > In case I wasn't clear: I'm not taking any messages off-list, and > would > appreciate on-list answers. > > To which I replied: > > As I stated in my reply: > > The paragraph above the one you quoted gives the context > you are looking > for, hence I figured it did not need an on list reply to an > already busy mail thread with lots of off topic or > uninformed input. > > I stand by that evaluation. > > > I am a bit disturbed to see that the AD resorted to sending me strange > justifications for their interpretation of [2] despite it clearly stating > that "In summary, we do not have consensus to publish the document as is. > [...] The chairs will then redo a working group last call to see if there > is rough consensus for publishing this document." > > You are the second person maliciously reducing the quoted text from the > TLS WG Chairs consensus call, which reads in full: > > > The working group last call for pure ML-KEM has concluded, thanks > to > those that participated in the discussion. In summary, we do not > have > consensus to publish the document as is. > > The largest number of participants wanted to publish the document > as > is, however there was also a significant number that wanted changes > to the document before publication and a small, but vocal, number > of > participants that do not want the document to be published at all. > There were several issues raised, but the main area of contention > was > around having a statement on the security and applicability of this > mechanism versus the hybrid key mechanisms. > > Given this, the chairs will move the document back to the "WG > Document" > state and ask the author to work on resolving the issues brought > up on the > list including text to address concerns that there are reasons to > prefer > hybrid over the pure approach. The chairs will then redo a working > group > last call to see if there is rough consensus for publishing this > document. > > > > I encourage more transparent behavior from this WG, and for the issues I > raise to be treated in a more transparent manner. > > You have made your objection clear. Unless you have additional information > that has not been shared on the list before, I think it would be good > to reduce the number of emails you are sending, especially repeated "+1" > emails on this specific topic that contain no new information. > > > I would also like to remind people of our "Mail List Procedures" > reminder that we send out every month in case you have not read it > before or need a reminder: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cK9kc6MNdYTOfhiPU5vMdRy8mC0/ > > > > Thanks in advance. > > Paul, speaking as AD. > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
