[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3

["D. J. Bernstein" <[e-mail]>]

Bellebaum, Thomas writes:
> I am counting 22 expressions in favor of adoption and 7 opposing
> adoption.

Thanks for doing the work to tally this, and for posting the details so
that people can check your message and post any necessary adjustments.

These numbers sound radically different from the AD's portrayal ("67
responses ... vast majority was in favour ... a few dissenting
opinions"). My own impression, from having read all messages as they
came in, was about a quarter of the people opposing, so I will be very
surprised if adjustments end up big enough to rescue the AD's portrayal.

So: Can we please now have an explanation from the chairs of how they
arrived at "It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a
working group item"?

To prevent any confusion about the procedures: Based on what I've seen
(the whole discussion, not just the fragmentary information conveyed by 
numbers), I disagree with this declaration of consensus. I am therefore
invoking the "first discuss the matter with the Working Group's
chair(s)" provision of RFC 2026, Section 6.5.1. I ask for this
discussion to be on-list for transparency.

Within that, what I'm suggesting---both because I think it's the natural
way forward, and because of transparency considerations; I'm not saying
this is the only possibility under RFC 2026---is for the chairs to start
by explaining to the WG how they evaluated consensus, so that we can all
consider the explanation, rather than starting with a bunch of
conflicting guesses from the rest of us regarding how consensus might
have been evaluated.

---D. J. Bernstein