[TLS] Re: [EXT] Re: Complaint to chairs regarding false claim of consensus to issue an RFC for draft-ietf-tls-mldsa

[Muhammad Usama Sardar <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Not to go into an endless loop here, but just to mention: My technical 
objection is outstanding and has not been addressed to date. The broader 
IETF consensus is captured in [0], since it is in the publication queue. 
I have a formal proof for that for TLS. Please clarify what you see 
wrong in my proof. To overturn that broader IETF consensus captured in 
[0], proponents have to come up with strong technical arguments, because 
the burden of proof here is on the proponents, not the opponents.

Neither making meta arguments (like A-B; rechartering; "milk") nor 
presenting a one-sided story (like counting of proponents) seems to be 
helpful. Please address the technical objections technically, not by 
exhausting the opponents.

Also to say that I will respond only to technical arguments, and no 
longer to these meta points. That doesn't mean my objection is addressed.

It increasingly feels to me that if we had adopted Stephen's draft [1] 
and focused even a small fraction of the energy we have spent on debates 
on ML-DSA and ML-KEM, we would have been far better.

On 06.05.26 02:58, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> Well, I’ve been participating in the IETF WGs only since  ̴1992, so 
> how would I know…

I am very naive in process things but I'm happy to know that I learnt in 
less than 34 years that "consensus" is not the same as "rough 
consensus." Chairs declared the former not the latter.

> But there’s a difference between “declaring” a consensus (which you 
> kindly attributed to me), and repeating what the Chairs already stated 
> a while ago (especially when some people keep contesting their decision).

I don't see how repetition helps, especially without adding any 
technical argument and without addressing my technical objection.

> IMHO, the only “key participant” remaining in this WG today is Eric 
> Rescorla.

To the best of my understanding, Ekr has been swinging back and forth. 
Very recently he has been in /strong opposition/ of publishing such 
drafts: see [2]. I fail to understand what changed it suddenly to 
support the publication of this draft, since it seems to be in the same 
category as pointed out in [2].

In particular, I also haven't seen him refuting my proof of security of 
hybrids.

>     >>  Considering the ratio of the “objectors” to the “supporters”,
>     the consensus seems to be there.
>
I believe ratio alone is not what determines the 'consensus.' Technical 
objections have to be addressed. Chairs, please correct me if I am wrong.


Sincerely,

-Usama


[0] 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-lamps-pq-composite-sigs-19.html#section-9.1

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-farrell-tls-pqg/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vIGryOB0TU_vD81HUUxXQUNdnN0/