(Someone sent me an email off-list telling me that this reads as “damning with faint praise”. Not at all my intent: I wasn’t being unkind, I was being precise. I don’t say things I don’t believe are exactly true, and unqualified praise for process outcomes can feel intellectually dishonest when I have substantive views about how things could have gone better, despite recognizing that the chairs are making strong, sustained and sincere efforts.)
Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 6 May 2026, at 6:25 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, in all honesty, one must admit that the chairs deserve some credit. > There is always room for improvement, but that’s a given in all cases. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > >> On 6 May 2026, at 4:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Thanks Deirdre, Joe, and Sean for all your hard work, and being willing to >> serve in roles that might be a strong contender for hardest chair role at >> IETF. >> >> -Tim >> From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 10:36 AM >> To: David Benjamin <[email protected]>; Sean Turner <[email protected]> >> Cc: TLS List <[email protected]> >> Subject: [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3 >> >> Agree, thanks Deirdre, Joe, and Sean for your hard work and leadership! >> >> From: David Benjamin <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 at 15:20 >> To: Sean Turner <[email protected]> >> Cc: TLS List <[email protected]> >> Subject: [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3 >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, Deirdre, Joe, and Sean, for all your hard work in navigating these >> WG discussions! >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 9:09 AM Sean Turner <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Replying to the original consensus call message. >> >> RFC 2418 Section 3.3 lays out the criteria for “rough consensus”: >> >> Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. >> IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although >> this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the >> working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that >> "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or >> persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus >> can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on >> which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% >> of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is >> better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough >> consensus has been reached. >> >> In this case, during WGLC there was an almost 4:1 ratio for progressing this >> draft, which we judge fits within the numeric “more than 51% and less than >> 99%” range suggested by this text for “rough consensus” and represents the >> “dominant view of the working group”. >> >> In assessing rough consensus, we also considered the nature of the >> objections. In reviewing the list traffic, the majority of objections >> related to the status of pure MLDSA versus composite MLDSA-ECC, including >> (1) we should not publish a pure MLDSA specification at all; (2) we should >> recommend composites over pure MLDSA; (3) we should publish the composite >> and pure MLDSA specifications concurrently. While there was substantial >> disagreement on these points, we believe that the discussion on-list >> sufficiently aired the respective points of view and that the right approach >> is fundamentally a judgement call based on weighing various technical >> factors, which each WG participant needs to make for themselves. We see no >> reason to believe that participants were not able to make informed >> judgements. >> >> Conclusion: The chairs believe there is consensus to proceed with >> publication of this draft as an RFC with Recommended=N for those people that >> want to use this algorithm, and a future Standards Action will be needed to >> make a change to Recommended=Y, if anyone has the willingness to undergo >> this heated discussion again. >> >> For transparency purposes, the chairs note that we received a >> complaint/appeal about the consensus call. The message was moderated due to >> a previous notice of moderation; see [1], and the complaint/appeal contains >> a derivative work notice. As a result, the message was not sent to the mail >> list and we will not process the complaint/appeal as-is. If the message is >> resubmitted without the notice, the message can be posted to the mail list >> and we will process the complaint/appeal. >> >> The Chairs, >> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >> >> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/no0lW8r_wIPGF1ZXWB3EaGywh9Q/ >> <https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/no0lW8r_wIPGF1ZXWB3EaGywh9Q/___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzo1MDE2ZjM5NjQ0Y2E5M2ViODdhMjQxNDFmYjMxNDFhMjo3OjUxNGE6OTkyYmQzYjEzMmY0YmM1MjY4NDg2ZTMyYmExYjhlZjNhMGE3YzA3N2QzZjRiOGE3NTc4MTk5YzY5Yjc5NTMzMzpoOlQ6Rg> >> >> On Apr 28, 2026, at 16:24, Sean Turner <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi! The chairs have judged that there is consensus to progress this I-D. We >> will work with the authors to get a new version submitted and we will get to >> work on the Shepherd Write-Up. >> >> The Chairs, >> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >> >> On Apr 9, 2026, at 15:30, Sean Turner <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> This is the working group last call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3. Please >> review draft-ietf-tls-mldsa [1] and reply to this thread indicating if you >> think it is ready for publication or not. If you do not think it is ready >> please indicate why. This call will end on April 23, 2026. >> >> REMINDER: If you have not done so recently, review the TLS WG's Mail List >> Procedures; see [2]. >> >> The Chairs, >> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mldsa/ >> <https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mldsa/___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzo1MDE2ZjM5NjQ0Y2E5M2ViODdhMjQxNDFmYjMxNDFhMjo3OjY1NDg6NzljOWU4ZmYxZDhiMWI4ODQ0MDEwNTk2MzVhOTdmZGQ0Y2VlMTk5ZWQ3NzgzYmFmMWU0NDU1YjdhNzIzNjVjYjpoOlQ6Rg> >> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/ >> <https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzo1MDE2ZjM5NjQ0Y2E5M2ViODdhMjQxNDFmYjMxNDFhMjo3OjhlNGE6Zjc2ZTk4ZDc2MTZjZTg4NDdkNjJiNTNlOTBmMWI1ZmU0YzZmNDAwZTVmNGM4YjczNWM1YjM0YTQ4NmZjNjVlYzpoOlQ6Rg> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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]
