[TLS] Re: FATT Process Updates: Contacting FATT

[Nadim Kobeissi <[e-mail]>]

I’m happy to volunteer as a FATT member. I’ve done prior work on the formal analysis of TLS 1.3, am confident in my ability to produce further work as required, and am willing to allocate the time.

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 28 Apr 2026, at 2:03 AM, Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]