[TLS] Re: Complaint to ADs and IESG regarding TLS WG chairs falsely claiming WG consensus to issue an RFC for draft-ietf-tls-mldsa

[Daniel Apon <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tibor,

I appreciate anyone's honest sentiments (such as yours) that hybrid should
be recommended (and even appreciate the perspectives of those that think
that non-hybrid should be disallowed, or even fought against -- even if I
have a different perspective personally).

I don't think it's fair to characterize my comment as toxic. It *really is
the case* that the discussion in this thread is abjectly non-technical.
(Unless, I suppose, the characterization is that I'm being toxic to
non-technical arguments; in which case I wholeheartedly agree!)

Cheers, sir,
--Daniel


On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 4:47 PM Tibor Jager <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On 01.06.26 21:40, Daniel Apon wrote:
> > " This statement might of course be outdated, but I recently asked one of
> > the members of the CRYSTALS team whether this is still his view, and the
> > response was: "Yes, of course." "
> >
> > I also recently asked _TWO_ members of the CRYSTALS team whether they
> > support hybrids in their view, and their joint response, which they
> > wrote in tiki torches -- flaming and placed across the facade of a
> > certain skyscraper located in the Iberian Peninsula, with a massive
> > fireworks show celebrating the lighting of these torches -- was "No, of
> > course not!"
> >
> > [[/The above was said facetiously/. In full disclosure, I have not been
> > explicitly told by the CRYSTALS team that they lit fiery torches in the
> > Iberian Peninsula with a massive fireworks show in support of any
> > particular cryptographic viewpoint.]]
>
> Thanks for the "facetious", but still very toxic comment. Instead of
> discussing fireworks, you could also have asked them about their opinion
> on hybrid deployments.
>
> I thought that most people on this list understood how it was meant, but
> obviously not everyone, therefore just for the record:
>
> The earlier discussion had referred to NIST and certain individual
> cryptographers as supporting non-hybrid deployment and suggested that
> many experts are comfortable with pure deployments. In light of this,
> and in the interest of making an informed decision, I think it is a
> relevant contribution to the discussion to point out that the inventors
> of the algorithms themselves are publicly recommending hybrid deployment.
>
> Since the statements on the CRYSTALS website are several years old, I
> wanted to make sure that this is still supported by the person I talked
> to, before I post about this on this list. Please feel free to ignore
> this anecdotal comment, and focus on the main point, if you don't find
> this adequate. Or just ask yourself.
>
> Best regards,
> Tibor
>