IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2026-02-27)

David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu> Fri, 20 February 2026 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <davadria@umich.edu>
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 D6E14BA92955 for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:44:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=umich.edu
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 CKHzcTmtS2xM for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from basilisk.relay-egress.a.mail.umich.edu (basilisk.relay-egress.a.mail.umich.edu [13.59.128.245]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BB6EBA928ED for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from limber-jackalope.authn-relay.a.mail.umich.edu (ip-10-0-72-253.us-east-2.compute.internal [10.0.72.253]) by basilisk.relay-egress.a.mail.umich.edu with ESMTPS id 69988F57.2EBD312.315DB2B5.3766555; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:44:07 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=umich.edu; s=relay-0; t=1771605846; bh=8XcFqtxmKSHXUXLCOliZSSk9ziIKRxB94iaTX/Vgl20=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc; b=F8fSaLRArIHl78J2uRldLmmNOVzbSRer6kccmI0h1O8tU5iiNOHBLBE2u5uumnSZU me27ZeFAEQ1j02COk7Z2oCxpV7FKe0/qmEEkS3PA2DC6eyGlqGMBTTh61/RzJkd8FE 7f++p5LkppVavYBmNKT3F30wmkqxjlQIPt2zUc7dmnEbxPs2RkDv4hGID+4SwsSLJz mStQrAAESJV84nsysjtb7009FsFBICX9gLJHxl+sX0gonqfl+HUuQHDfwkZ6zSMG4+ 7VIPrOQJuo/OBCnV/Wq2j2MKuSPmQbsJNfKOaNjMJKVs9+Fn0pU+pQqw4w8oYXK8ms WX+nAbWLMTKzQ==
Authentication-Results: limber-jackalope.authn-relay.a.mail.umich.edu; iprev=pass policy.iprev=209.85.167.51 (mail-lf1-f51.google.com); auth=pass smtp.auth=davadria
Received: from mail-lf1-f51.google.com (mail-lf1-f51.google.com [209.85.167.51]) by limber-jackalope.authn-relay.a.mail.umich.edu with ESMTPSA id 69988F56.127E6408.5E1B49FC.1548745; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:44:06 -0500
Received: by mail-lf1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-59dd4bec4ecso2438599e87.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:44:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUxASgwinLuVU86xYnZbFK0ww0gqYpuTN7GK2lLcgRCAZxaAc+mbkkuIMr7DpUQpMNMiNY=@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw96J/E3rHo9hfUmhLY/hMHEAhkBb3d7KjpIvaBsHTJYjfE4eCO FnYNOhjIyYbJwGrNerRsKZGRcIhXc0v8tnoQS58Biv5CGAb9igl7H/7Mcexe4BQFqMNU3OCOwNq PCUy5ca4OPGe2nPz4p8KvXdmyENxyneE=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:251e:b0:59f:6b7a:c8a2 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5a0ed9b26ebmr27802e87.33.1771605844540; Fri, 20 Feb 2026 08:44:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20260218194044.1135896.qmail@cr.yp.to> <7C9C99AA-42B0-4BC7-8F41-39F35754F1C4@vigilsec.com> <MN2PR17MB40310F0A2891942D76C43E60CD6BA@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <2caab265-00ba-4078-b6d0-3a178dabaa61@tu-dresden.de> <CAEEbLAbkV4YxN7cgggckpEp24MLtRZpzs6M4KemBatpzCCcs0A@mail.gmail.com> <MEAPR01MB3654415F735DE96CEE239C78EE68A@MEAPR01MB3654.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <aZfbhrFDBp7a0xHL@chardros.imrryr.org> <EB48AB24-A1A2-47C8-9C2C-47C93B9320E7@thomwiggers.nl> <93af0689-4bd3-4f6b-afaf-41869d27fa4d@app.fastmail.com> <CAMtubr3QcHbiP5guhBoiFbFh8tKSD6WNHBJkxxb_AM4Wy5i0=g@mail.gmail.com> <9b71e709-69a3-f3d9-4cbd-d4d521556c55@nohats.ca> <ee1be3a5-0e03-4976-8398-45c014c9dfcd@cs.tcd.ie> <MN2PR17MB40312E1668509F478EA89251CD68A@MN2PR17MB4031.namprd17.prod.outlook.com> <18AC90C3-007D-4B41-9B01-A0398EAA81B0@symbolic.software>
In-Reply-To: <18AC90C3-007D-4B41-9B01-A0398EAA81B0@symbolic.software>
From: David Adrian <davadria@umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:43:52 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CACf5n78fNgGc5KnwDAEt821weeWbc9c434iQjv8pUC4hZGZehg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Gm-Features: AaiRm51JKcZZAM1ltIXxq3VuJ7VeZV5Xl6Y6aSr5wy7Iy6e2xGA780FmlnM5PcQ
Message-ID: <CACf5n78fNgGc5KnwDAEt821weeWbc9c434iQjv8pUC4hZGZehg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000bc324064b44215b"
Message-ID-Hash: N7IEQAEJWKD2ANTSDJT7LJMMTFXTV7TX
X-Message-ID-Hash: N7IEQAEJWKD2ANTSDJT7LJMMTFXTV7TX
X-MailFrom: davadria@umich.edu
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
CC: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Paul Wouters <paul=40nohats.ca@dmarc.ietf.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-05 (Ends 2026-02-27)
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/DADM-aSchZKmXfpqhxkcKm6FvWg>
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>

> I suggest that the current WGLC be scrapped.  Wait at least a week for
the traffic to dry up. Then issue a new WGLC with a completely different
subject line and point out that discussions on previous email threads do
not count as part of determining consensus, if you can do that. Run that
WGLC until the doc-cutoff for the IETF meeting, and put it on the agenda
asking folks to not repeat what they’ve already posted.

This seems like a tremendous waste of time. The chairs should exclude from
their consensus determination mail from people who are not limiting their
comments to clarifying text and are instead relitigating the same
previously discussed arguments. There is no reason to believe the same
people going off topic now, will not simply go off topic on yet another
WGLC.

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:19 AM Nadim Kobeissi <nadim@symbolic.software>
wrote:

> This seems wise to me, and a bare minimum indeed.
>
> Nadim Kobeissi
> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software
>
> On 20 Feb 2026, at 5:11 PM, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>    - FWIW, I read that as meaning a fresh WGLC not one limited to the
>    - diff. And I think it'd be unwise to process this as if it weren't
>    - as controversial as it clearly is.
>
>
> I agree.
>
> I suggest that the current WGLC be scrapped.  Wait at least a week for the
> traffic to dry up. Then issue a new WGLC *with a completely different
> subject line *and point out that discussions on previous email threads do
> not count as part of determining consensus, if you can do that. Run that
> WGLC until the doc-cutoff for the IETF meeting, and put it on the agenda
> asking folks to not repeat what they’ve already posted.
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status