[TLS] Re: Please stop debating ML-DSA

[Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Eric,

I 100% agree with you. Let's get back to fun debates about crypto policy and protocols.

-Tim
________________________________
From: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, June 7, 2026 3:59 PM
To: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Subject: [TLS] Please stop debating ML-DSA

Fellow TLS enthusiasts,

This message is a plea to stop debating whether the IETF should
publish an RFC for standalone ML-DSA [0]

What makes communities like the IETF work is that regardless of our
views on particular subjects, we have a common commitment to a process
for resolving disagreements. An important part of that process is that
those on the losing side of a particular issue recognize that they
have lost and accept the outcome. I recognize that that can be hard --
I've certainly been on the losing side more than once, and I didn't
like it -- but the alternative, in which the losing side just
continues to litigate the issue indefinitely is even worse.

I recognize that there are those who feel that the process was not
followed in this instance. Their recourse is to the IETF appeals
process, starting with the area director, and then the IESG. You may
or may not feel that that is a satisfactory recourse, but whether it
is or not, continuing to debate the topic on the TLS mailing list is
not part of the process and will not change the outcome, because the
document is now out of the WG's hands [1]. What it will do, however,
is make engaging with the TLS WG unpleasant for those trying to do
other work.

Accordingly, I would ask my fellow WG members to restrain yourselves.
In addition, I would ask the chairs to rule that further discussion on
the virtues of publishing an ML-DSA document is out of order and
moderate those who insist on continuing.

-Ekr


[0] As a technical matter, if the WG came to consensus *not* to
publish the document, we could pull it back; I see essentially
no chance that will happen.

[1] Standalone ML-KEM is a different case because it is still
with the WG, although I don't think debate on that topic
is very productive either at this point.