[TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3

[Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>]

If you have concerns about IETF processes and how they are handled, please bring your concerns to the chairs. This would be especially useful in this case, as your opinions about appearances are not aligned with reality. This draft has absolutely no relation to the composites draft, and is not linked to it in any way, so any discussion about what did or didn't happen to that draft is completely off-topic for the Working Group Last Call of this draft.

So the problem is not that I feel offended, it's that your vague insinuations of process errors are not based on reality, and not even on topic for this Working Group Last Call. I believe you really do not mean to not offend other participants, but in the future please handle your concerns via the proper channels and procedures. And when you do offend someone by failing to do so, you should take responsibility for your own behavior which caused it and be sorry for that, not just sorry for how the victim feels, as if your own actions are somehow not involved.

This working group has been and can be much better than it is. We need to all work together on that.

-Tim


________________________________
From: Nicola Tuveri <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2026 10:40 PM
To: Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]>
Cc: Salz, Rich <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3

Dear Tim,

I am sorry you felt offended, but I disagree with you.

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 22.30 Tim Hollebeek <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I strongly object to the suggestion that not enough time has been spent discussing the advantages and disadvantages of hybrid vs non-hybrid authentication (a rather bold claim at this point, after eight years of such discussions!) or any suggestion that this process is moving too fast.

While arguments on both camps have been posted to this and other IETF lists, no consensus was achieved.

I would like to remind participants that IETF we stick to the technical merits of the draft and do not engage in these sorts of process insinuations.

What I argue is that process did become a way to avoid finding a consensus or compromise on the technical merits of the choice on hybrid vs non-hybrid.
The TLS composite-draft was parked since the adoption call for these 2  drafts (among others) was pre-announced at IETF 122.
The adoption call happened for one and not for the other, and that is a process matter, and, appears to me looking at the discussions on the mailing list and the minutes of meetings, the difference is one of pressure on process rather than reaching a conclusion based solely on technical merits of the individual drafts.

This is not meant to offend you nor any other participant, and I do agree that technical merits are what should lead our outcomes.

Unfortunately, as long as the list repeatedly contains the argument “we already have X published, moving Y forward adds choices, therefore adds complexity, therefore disrupts security” when discussing ciphersuites , the schedule for the adoption and the work on drafts and the process around it, do have a weight along the technical merits/defects of each individual draft.

Best regards,

Nicola