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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,
At 03:01 AM 17-04-2025, Bellebaum, Thomas wrote:
>I am counting 22 expressions in favor of adoption and 7 opposing adoption.
>This amounts to about every fourth person objecting the draft in its 
>current state at this time, which seems more than can be explained 
>by mere blocking of few individuals.

First of all, I would like to thank you for sharing the count of 
those who expressed an opinion about the draft.

>I am not questioning that this is a sound majority, but consensus is 
>a harsh word.
>Neither am I threatening to appeal, but I do share the view that 
>merely declaring concerns such as "hybrids are way more 
>conservative" as hypothetical/irrelevant to whether or not to 
>publish this is not a reasonable way forward. The feeling (I am not 
>saying "the fact") of this happening is valid.
>However, openly accusing others of playing games or ignoring 
>procedures does not result in good specifications.

It is quite tedious to attain genuine consensus.  The alternative, 
well, one of them, would be to let the voters decide.  This is where 
one could end up with a majority, a sound majority, etc.  On reading 
your email I would not describe it as "consensus" even though you did 
not express the wish to appeal.

I assume that having one or two persons blocking a decision is not an 
ideal means of moving forward.  Ignoring one or two persons is not an 
ideal means of keeping a group cohesive.  Someone has to figure out 
how to resolve that.  It is very difficult to do it through email.

I am a bit curious about whether the dispute is about the usage of 
the word "consensus" or something else.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy