Dear Tim, I am sorry you felt offended, but I disagree with you.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 22.30 Tim Hollebeek <[email protected]> wrote: > I strongly object to the suggestion that not enough time has been spent > discussing the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid vs non-hybrid > authentication (a rather bold claim at this point, after eight years of > such discussions!) or any suggestion that this process is moving too fast. > While arguments on both camps have been posted to this and other IETF lists, no consensus was achieved. I would like to remind participants that IETF we stick to the technical > merits of the draft and do not engage in these sorts of process > insinuations. > What I argue is that process did become a way to avoid finding a consensus or compromise on the technical merits of the choice on hybrid vs non-hybrid. The TLS composite-draft was parked since the adoption call for these 2 drafts (among others) was pre-announced at IETF 122. The adoption call happened for one and not for the other, and that is a process matter, and, appears to me looking at the discussions on the mailing list and the minutes of meetings, the difference is one of pressure on process rather than reaching a conclusion based solely on technical merits of the individual drafts. This is not meant to offend you nor any other participant, and I do agree that technical merits are what should lead our outcomes. Unfortunately, as long as the list repeatedly contains the argument “we already have X published, moving Y forward adds choices, therefore adds complexity, therefore disrupts security” when discussing ciphersuites , the schedule for the adoption and the work on drafts and the process around it, do have a weight along the technical merits/defects of each individual draft. Best regards, Nicola
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
