[TLS] Re: FATT Process Updates: Contacting FATT

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

It will probably not change anything but just to share my last 2 cents 
on this without going into a debate:

On 27.04.26 20:49, Filippo Valsorda wrote:
> I’m opposed: it doesn’t sound like we heard from any FATT members 
> about this? The scarce resource here is their time, we should do 
> whatever works best for them

That's a very fair point and I see this as a perfectly valid reason for 
opposition by /FATT/, but perhaps not by /WG members/. In my 
understanding, it would likely save FATT time, as I mention in the draft 
[0]. But if they oppose it, I'll just drop it, just like I dropped the 
openness point a couple of years ago.

I believe chairs will seek their input directly, as they might not be 
fine with sharing their individual opinions.

> (and secondarily try not to block things unnecessarily on them, which 
> means I am especially opposed to anything in 
> https://muhammad-usama-sardar.github.io/tls-fatt-extension/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension.html that 
> would have made a trivial addition of a key exchange algorithm like 
> ML-KEM block on FATT).

FWIW, this appears to be largely orthogonal to the mechanism for 
/contacting/ FATT, which was the topic of this sub-thread.

FWIW, this "trivial" addition has an opposition of several WG members in 
my understanding. It is essentially blocked. It is not obvious to me how 
we are going to unblock that without formal analysis. I don't think 
calling it "trivial" will lead us anywhere.

I am very surprised that a sincere effort to resolve the dispute and to 
offer a statement for security considerations is labelled as 'block'-ing 
draft by the WG members, especially given that the draft is already 
blocked by the opposition of several WG members.

Instead of spending more time and energies on resolving issues of 
ML-KEM, I would rather let it remain blocked and do some useful work for 
other WGs.

Thank you all for your time and energies on considering my proposals. I 
am grateful to all for the discussion.


Sincerely,

-Usama

[0] 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-usama-tls-fatt-extension-06.html#section-4.1.3-2.2.1