IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to> Tue, 15 April 2025 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to>
X-Original-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E06E1C96C90 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT=0.24, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqzC06nKrlBN for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from salsa.cs.uic.edu (salsa.cs.uic.edu [131.193.32.108]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB2DD1C96C8B for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Apr 2025 15:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 20122 invoked by uid 1010); 15 Apr 2025 22:16:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (unknown) by unknown with QMTP; 15 Apr 2025 22:16:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 237108 invoked by uid 1000); 15 Apr 2025 22:16:45 -0000
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:16:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20250415221645.237106.qmail@cr.yp.to>
From: "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>
To: tls@ietf.org
Mail-Followup-To: tls@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <BN0P110MB14198B6485FA1CD4F6128B8290B2A@BN0P110MB1419.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Message-ID-Hash: 6UKL3TVAJQU4CVJQJJU6OAPVXPRR24OQ
X-Message-ID-Hash: 6UKL3TVAJQU4CVJQJJU6OAPVXPRR24OQ
X-MailFrom: djb-dsn2-1406711340.7506@cr.yp.to
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tls.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: WG Adoption Call for ML-KEM Post-Quantum Key Agreement for TLS 1.3
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/l0X4k9x5pALbodKMWr3npf6keX4>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tls-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tls-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tls-leave@ietf.org>

Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL writes:
> “Consensus” is not about reaching no dissenters.

Consensus doesn't require unanimity, but it does require fairly
considering and trying to resolve each objection---which is exactly what
the list records show didn't happen here.

Also, _if_ resolution fails and an objection is overridden by general
agreement, the reasons for overriding it have to be documented.

> It’s about the “prevailing” opinion of majority

No, voting is _not_ how IETF is supposed to work. IETF doesn't even have
a membership mechanism, so if voting were allowed then there wouldn't
even be the most basic protection against votes being bought.

---D. J. Bernstein

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status