On Thu, Mar 26, 2026 at 1:23 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 09:42:23AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 3:20 AM Simon Josefsson <simon= > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > This all seems motivated by insuring against the ML-KEM patent license > > > that limits for what ML-KEM can be used for, to allow the IETF to say > > > "oh but TLS does not allow ephemeral key shared so we don't care about > > > that use-case". > > > > No. That's not correct, at least not for me. > > > > Separately, I've noticed you have a tendency to attribute motives to > > others that aren't really accurate and often seem designed to reflect > > badly on them. I would ask you to stop. > > Simon's guess at motivation above was a bit awkward, but I don't think > it was "designed to reflect badly" on anyone -- certainly I don't see it > as reflecting badly on anyone. You yourself appear to ascribe motive to > Simon's ascribing motive, which is awkward when you're complaing about > the very same behavior. > > We should not ascribe motives because it's impolite, bothersome, and > counter-productive (and distracting and often the suspicions are flat > out wrong). But we also should not use instances of that in ways that > can suck the oxygen out of the room and shut down debate. Rather IMO > one should limit oneself to expressing a complaint about that and move > on. > Which is what I did. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
