[TLS]Re: Consensus call for RFC8773bis Formal Analysis Requirement

["Salz, Rich" <[e-mail]>]

➢ All of it was posted to the list in May: 
➢ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vK2N0vr83W6YlBQMIaVr9TeHzu4/ 

Quoting that message: “Here is a summary across all participants:” It is not the messages and discussion.

Further, that summary is inconsistent and hard to follow:

   *Does the change merit an updated analysis?*

   I think so....

   The main question to ask, other than whether this extension breaks prior
   analyses, is what are the new guarantees it provides: that will indeed
   require new analysis.

   I see much more need for analysis when it comes to the authentication
   properties of the PSK (psk/cert combination), whereas the secrecy (assuming
   authentication is a non-goal) is much more straightforward.

   I agree with the above.

Let's number those responses one through four.  Were they four different people? Are two and three from the same person? What is the "above" that number four agrees with?

Further, as I recently noted, a stated goal of the panel was to provide a level of estimate of the amount of work required. The only response in the summary was "seems feasible."

By convention within the IETF, WGChairs are not supposed to weigh in *as Chairs* on technical matters.  (Recall EKR stepped down as Chair to work on TLS 1.3.) Looking at the description in the not-really-current, but-still-mostly-correct, RFC about this, https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.html#page-16 there is *no mention* of Chairs providing technical expertise.

We consider an "anononymity set" a useful thing for TLS ECH, privacy-preserving measurement, and so on. It is *not* appropriate here. That's what this panel is, despite (almost?) everyone in the WG who commented saying that they don't like it. A point to which the chairs neve directly responded.

"I was talking to more than one cryptographer at CRYPTO this week who have sworn off all participation in the IETF after the curve flamewares in the past, etc". And how many of them are on the triage panel? And what curve wars, the ones that happened in CFRG? And what is etc?  And really, academia is better?

I agree that IETF behavior has driven away people who could make useful contributions. That is sad. Maybe we'll continue to improve our behavior enough that they will come back. The trade-off, having feedback filtered through the WG chairs, mixed in with other feedback, is not worth the perversion of the IETF open policies and procedures. Perhaps teach them how to contribute with a not-obvious email, "[e-mail]" or some such.