[saag] Re: New Version Notification for draft-rsalz-crypto-registries-00.txt

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

> On Nov 29, 2024, at 09:47, D. J. Bernstein <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>    * an AD, after indisputably being informed that a WG has adopted an
>      NTRU Prime document, issuing false claims of IETF consensus "that
>      there is no appetite for NTRUprime".

Please stop willfully misinterpreting what I say. As i explained a few times now, i am talking IETF wide. not just SSH.

These type of personal attacks in why a lot of people refuse to engage with you at all publicly. Continuing to do so will add me to that list.

> Very similar fraud

i am CC:ing the ombudsman to notify them that you are publicly accusing me of fraud. This is unacceptable behaviour and violates the IETF code of conduct.

>>> Instead the ADs seem to be _encouraging_ having Kyber as
>>> the only post-quantum encryption option.
>> That is willful misrepresentation.
> 
> You're on record claiming, e.g., that "the cryptographic research
> communities are focusing on NIST candidates ... Should the IETF really
> recommend a dropped candidate at this stage? I do not think so".

again, misquoting and on top of that equating "dropping candidate X" with "no candidates whatsoever". Again, willfully misrepresenting what I said.

> The
> only PQ encryption mechanism that NIST has standardized is Kyber, so
> this do-only-what-NIST-does position is encouraging Kyber as the only PQ
> encryption option for IETF too.

i never said "only do what nist does". please cite with link (not scary quote!) where i said we should only do kyber.

> You're also on record responding to the Kyber patent mess by claiming,
> e.g., that the "process for deciding on cryptography is a separate
> process" somehow exempting cryptography from BCP 79. You didn't back
> down on this claim even after
> 
>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/saag/pKLdOqJpiyZDIrqJjrFuD65tWUc/
> 
> gave a quote from Scott Bradner to the contrary. Ultimately what matters
> is that you seem to be letting Kyber specs sail through while throwing
> obstacles in the way of other options.

"I" am not doing any of these claims unless your claim is "disagreeing with someone is the same as throwing obstacles in someone's way". Your indirect claim of me abusing a leadership role is reprehensible. If you have an actual case of abuse, you should file your case with the IESG or the IAB.

Note I am technically one of the moderators of the saag list. If you had written this email targeting someone else, I would have taken moderation actions based on the abusive and misleading content of this email. I am not taking such action to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest (but adding IESG and ombudsman to CC: for visibility)

Paul