[TLS] Re: Complaint to ADs regarding a declaration of consensus to adopt a non-hybrid draft

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry, but I've not managed to keep all the state-of-play of the
arseboxing in the brain-buffer, so...

On 14/10/2025 23:30, Paul Wouters wrote:
> 
> Thus, it cannot come as surprise that I still cannot process your email as a
> valid Appeal Contribution under RFC 2026.

Can you clarify a thing for me: djb's myriad objections (IMO) include
both substance and arseboxing, as I think do the AD/IESG responses, but
do you think you/sec-ADs/IESG have responded on the substance?

For clarity, my impression of the substance is:

a) the IETF might conclude that sensible hybrid KEMs are sufficiently
better than pure-PQ KEMs so that something should be done (e.g. to
not issue RFCs for pure-PQ KEMs, or to caveat those, or whatever).
I think we can/should be independently confident of our position,
just as are all sorts of governments/regulators with contradictory
positions.

and

b) that Sean/Joe did/did-not err (as we all do from time to time)
in concluding the call for adoption of the pure-MLKEM/TLS draft.

If it helps, I'd be fine to generate some appeal of something to
try arrive at an answer WRT (a). I'm less concerned (but still a
bit) with (b), where there're still numerous opportunities to
object (and I will:-)

Thanks,
S.

PS: To be clear: I don't have any reason to think any IETF folks
here are sinning in more than a too-committed manner... so nothing
in this is intended to impugn anyone's motives/reputation since I
like and respect all the relevant actors:-)