IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list

Ken Kubota <ietf@kenkubota.de> Fri, 31 July 2026 10:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf@kenkubota.de>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E51C12185E3B for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 03:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1785494269; bh=5DAuDhRz1+yC1quDra7izvjb+vkNy6cJGYcveprX7WQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=qN2v7MW4UUTJ/1rMvy83xpGlreHz96bzHFRitMnKviEkwx3AyVTd2+bswolLEZzf4 5gS/8TrWdokig0/qze7D5iQsHjGlRmzfbk0G4u8NJCxlxIa+CbDyNB2gS6CFNg33Nb sGKRtqxe6GHORV96Oe24mcVJTIMnPM0E+2nPV8jM=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kenkubota.de
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VP3gDZbdas8L for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 03:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from plasma4.jpberlin.de (plasma4.jpberlin.de [80.241.57.33]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2938D12185E2F for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 03:37:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spamfilter01.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter01.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.115]) by plasma.jpberlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3510EC07DE; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:37:40 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kenkubota.de; s=MBO0001; t=1785494260; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5DAuDhRz1+yC1quDra7izvjb+vkNy6cJGYcveprX7WQ=; b=aJIMKwMdPyoPa+pjSKaareNdYWx2FkIyTqwYpWqhn54Lk0xK0NE7m2IkgzKv0mwVp7GT3F kCLMF1CYojZbqzAL54ZJ1wZmlctNrF5GvSRDzbzzUEDlM/eCE4S5Zyie52YbyzsdxCo0p0 Va5eLJeY079ZdpQfzsE1tP+pOtKtVfxFg04VGqkVlGEzv9CGP5gvijvjd8PRH6O7ZfI0KV Ic+Qg+iEDgd/zSb0GImsemdPhogh+SCidUDQUF5gK6WoBFjAKwdP2U5P8CLcr5ljQ6CPOP S0Ra3xALa3kv/nl/gUsXr4A1jZ7TRSQincPgvjkWtZjCRG4CdlbsLWUHEJdV1Q==
Received: from plasma.jpberlin.de ([80.241.56.68]) by spamfilter01.heinlein-hosting.de (spamfilter01.heinlein-hosting.de [80.241.56.115]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id wjhBtChu8KlG; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:37:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [37.19.200.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: ietf@kenkubota.de) by plasma.jpberlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61DCAB5602; Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:37:32 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: Ken Kubota <ietf@kenkubota.de>
In-Reply-To: <c8a74833-35cd-44a0-8992-e5463a82aa8f@dennis-jackson.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2026 12:37:18 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F95592F7-6E60-4835-B21C-B5B1954084F7@kenkubota.de>
References: <CAEzBKQ4fymnSeo8tgqMLOfKopvMGk4xnDq=SQJKf-RBL4-uh6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAEEbLAbhZUpempA9Rvjhm1qrLfBWXa_2ntdfpO20cqDu0h5fbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAEzBKQ6NOzQc66T+SEdSvLa2gxjtO77DYUUWuTfr99zV_a-Ofg@mail.gmail.com> <c8a74833-35cd-44a0-8992-e5463a82aa8f@dennis-jackson.uk>
To: Dennis Jackson <ietf=40dennis-jackson.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>
Message-ID-Hash: EAW6GIXJOQGS2VQZNLKI24N23ST4UPTY
X-Message-ID-Hash: EAW6GIXJOQGS2VQZNLKI24N23ST4UPTY
X-MailFrom: ietf@kenkubota.de
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; header-match-tls.ietf.org-1; header-match-tls.ietf.org-2; header-match-tls.ietf.org-3; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/Fz09Q5GQ7y1Bxvkqs3KvKpexmiI>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

> Am 31.07.2026 um 03:35 schrieb Dennis Jackson <ietf=40dennis-jackson.uk@dmarc.ietf.org>:

> On 30/07/2026 16:30, Paul Romer wrote:

>> I think I understand why the message I submitted made people who
>> supported publication of the RFC feel defensive and threatened. I
>> think everyone understands why.
>> 
>> Hostility toward something as innocuous as a cost-benefit analysis is
>> a sign of the damage that was done by the strategy of misdirection and
>> deception that was used to get the RFC published.
> This kind of hostile framing very much undermines your claim to want to improve the quality of discussion on this mailing list. It is completely unwarranted as a response to Sophie's message and the blatant hypocrisy reflects rather poorly on you. 

There have been repeated requests [1, 2] that the working group chairs release the participant chart/list/table publicly that supports the 70 % claim ("7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" [3]).

These legitimate requests have been systematically ignored.
("We do not intend to release any further detailed analysis including 'numbers' or 'weights/methods'." [4])

Transparency is a core principle of the IETF.

Refusing to make public the data relevant for decision making, yet inferring conclusions from non-public data by claiming a "consensus," in my opinion, is a blatant violation of IETF core principles.


Therefore, remaining silent on this while criticizing Paul Romer for stating the obvious lacks credibility.


Kind regards,

Ken Kubota

____________________________________________________

Ken Kubota
https://doi.org/10.4444/100



[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260721143450/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2rbof_YfCt5pjKKUy4NUf8ZlRiE/

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20260721143450/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fug5oe9-vK7jMnx9F6ikxL0Z1bY/

[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20260719121145/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588yVW3JWrb8U/

[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20260721143439/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/RLDcZHHbCUZRgmmWbP1j2dDQhAQ/

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status