Hi Paul,
I'm sorry, but I've not managed to keep all the state-of-play of the arseboxing in the brain-buffer, so... On 14/10/2025 23:30, Paul Wouters wrote:
Thus, it cannot come as surprise that I still cannot process your email as a valid Appeal Contribution under RFC 2026.
Can you clarify a thing for me: djb's myriad objections (IMO) include both substance and arseboxing, as I think do the AD/IESG responses, but do you think you/sec-ADs/IESG have responded on the substance? For clarity, my impression of the substance is: a) the IETF might conclude that sensible hybrid KEMs are sufficiently better than pure-PQ KEMs so that something should be done (e.g. to not issue RFCs for pure-PQ KEMs, or to caveat those, or whatever). I think we can/should be independently confident of our position, just as are all sorts of governments/regulators with contradictory positions. and b) that Sean/Joe did/did-not err (as we all do from time to time) in concluding the call for adoption of the pure-MLKEM/TLS draft. If it helps, I'd be fine to generate some appeal of something to try arrive at an answer WRT (a). I'm less concerned (but still a bit) with (b), where there're still numerous opportunities to object (and I will:-) Thanks, S. PS: To be clear: I don't have any reason to think any IETF folks here are sinning in more than a too-committed manner... so nothing in this is intended to impugn anyone's motives/reputation since I like and respect all the relevant actors:-)
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
