[TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: WG Adoption Call for ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3

["Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <[e-mail]>]

>> “Consensus” is not about reaching no dissenters.
>
> Consensus doesn't require unanimity, but it does require fairly
> considering and trying to resolve each objection---which is exactly what
> the list records show didn't happen here. 
I, for one, considered (I daresay) fairly your objections, and both myself and the experts whose opinion I respect disagreed. 
The record shows that our arguments failed to convince you, and you can see for yourself that your arguments failed to convince us. Thus, there is and can be no “resolution” aka “compromise” (and what compromise do you suggest when one side says “I need to do X and not Y” and the other side says “no”?). 
> Also, _if_ resolution fails and an objection is overridden by general
> agreement, the reasons for overriding it have to be documented. 
The reason is that the majority disagrees with the objections. 
>> It’s about the “prevailing” opinion of majority
>
> No, voting is _not_ how IETF is supposed to work. IETF doesn't even have
> a membership mechanism, so if voting were allowed then there wouldn't
> even be the most basic protection against votes being bought.


It is not about “voting” – but you must notice the similarities (and differences) between “voting” and “consensus”. 
“Voting” is where one vote can change the outcome. 
“Consensus” is where something like “super-majority” is needed. From what I observed – that’s what we have here. And yes, there are a few loud dissenters (thankfully, consensus is not determined by “loudness”).