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

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

Sean Turner writes:
> Hi! It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working
> group item.

Um, what? There were several people (including me) raising objections on
list to basic flaws in this draft, such as (1) the failure to provide an
ECC backup to limit the damage from further security problems in the PQ
layer, (2) the failure to provide an engineering justification for this
option, and (3) the lack of any principles that would justify saying no
to options selected by other governments if this option is allowed.

Your message doesn't explain how you came to the conclusion that there's
consensus. Surely you aren't relying on some tally of positive votes to
ram this document through while ignoring objections; voting isn't how
IETF is supposed to work. So how _did_ you come to this conclusion?

As a procedural matter, this lack of explanation is in violation of
"IETF activities are conducted with extreme transparency, in public
forums". Please rectify this violation immediately. Also, please state
the procedures for appealing your action. Thanks in advance.

---D. J. Bernstein