[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-08 (Ends 2026-07-08)

[Andrew Lee <[e-mail]>]

My apologies for my follow up e-mail that should have been included in my previous response, but I also wanted to caution that there is insufficient evidence to make the conclusions as opined by the accuser. It is a deliberate attempt to both create stratification/classes within the IETF and, further, could be construed as a form of gas lighting, or worse defamation, due to being presented as fact without evidence.

Again, when an IETF vote/consensus gathering activity skews into this level of mudslinging, consensus is unable to be declared appropriately by virtue of what rough consensus is.

I hope everyone can cool off and discuss this on an intellectual level as it relates to the identified risks of solo ML-KEM and procedural level as it relates to the IETF.

I definitely don’t want to see non-evidence backed accusations being thrown around on a large public mailing list on my Sunday morning.

Cheers,
Andrew

> On Jun 28, 2026, at 12:11 PM, Andrew Lee <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 28, 2026, at 11:45 AM, Filippo Valsorda <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm not the In-Reply-To police, I was linked to what amounts to an external influence campaign, so I made sure the WG was aware of it and correlated it to the three (now five) most recent emails that are consistent with it.
>> 
>> Not sure how "the degree to which individuals have participated in the WG in the past should be part of how their opinion is weighted into calling the consensus of the WG" could be interpreted in good faith to refer only to opposing opinions.
> 
> I’ve seen these alleged “influence campaigns” both ways with the most egregious, and quite recent, being an IETF chair both influencing and launching a personal attack on a contributor. It was and is as appalling as it sounds.
> 
> Long story short, pointing fingers doesn’t amount to much and is a significantly lower standard than I’d have expected within the actions of those who dress themselves as mature IETF participants.
> 
> Frankly, given this mudslinging has already reached these depths, it’s clear that this topic still needs further debate and discussion.
> 
> Rushing the publication of this document under this environment would be careless at best, and unfortunately, quite far from IETF’s own procedures at worst (and a whole lot more).
> 
> Best,
> Andrew