IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Thu, 26 February 2026 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
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 63505BE65F5F for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:06:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 N4qMKlh8oHQg for <tls@mail2.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E87BBE65F53 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:06:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-43991cc3155so330032f8f.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:06:58 -0800 (PST)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1772075212; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; b=jW89HtxQ+u6AoHfv9NpI4V/PF8JFPbADfNqDEZM644XAHzkjH0ZhymfqwtUofVLgoc cyUe2yz0Ct31gnE1Poo73rG9JFiQJQB8ZNALm8zHRJIVYCjh36Uiq8YKqyYFOrGlzCsg WNp1VVACKqCUfUfDCgGPJW3cT+YsEVTgiu7C5kZc+22mkEvg7O7UntwrE3G+0yYMkTBW bsv0+1Y6/Ff52apZ16quYqvdZaAvL0ZkDiHp5bV6yD0h+XhcoDE0qnKCLAhnHMKAL76Y bKZo6i48PMIhQbAOmkH5jFNSvQ/uqUSATsQHZuwk0NhosiD3dmOvaJg0vG3f6wz6mGMT ERIA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20240605; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=JdbCLrnaoujxjLHeo8zEBosU/XG76toy9scmKcrspp8=; fh=GQShQwNA1+tMMlUikM0ZQIVIzBaaGkZzQTj1xtSx574=; b=RqDxZJbOrXi9sFPogfAy/dPYv+NflTYc2erx299u4f9nroSeeN7qENMiP4wj/kCWof pt9iZ3tR2RzPZE9ornFr8Hdr7d3p6KMWjX+wW8JTtdE3hjXGDJUCem7v81QC0uey3tgZ sXiqMr5Ne5KlvuyJKAJfRjiTUUZhe/jgVFamIhrMyFG1qPpjRoAHo9qh8e+ebpncH0ec LhVsdkF/qP+B6NGbluVzF4pioa02HmAPLorn6WOFclpxKwDFO8E/uUaLqxOplqdq8Ju/ 2CY4UxEiDZO1g2lW+YocAcfExSJJFewKP6QwBvJYA1F+2klE0CmfK2nnA892MftkDwA8 cunQ==; darn=ietf.org
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1772075212; x=1772680012; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JdbCLrnaoujxjLHeo8zEBosU/XG76toy9scmKcrspp8=; b=hGmTqP4PmTn+4nF1YkkUUjUaVaGKB0IulpdmlxtxZsK8SO+vPHzGeodhFgm1+u4c2P fblJx0czH2rjqGjK4Cz115/xDzTb0re7bauv4FObRsYR/H4wfLoVkCvCZU5uhqaVJh3F 9A3se7ISy7EwzIfz3OQEmAal01qb6ZNTSubK43EyqI2fDH0aruHJmjz+69X1cWwD3zf/ lYYV+xvvLQKNeZsPjbqbv0YzWq6pJys7t9e11xL6J5cRZIxgSgsLmMyg8O9g0Q5Vs2B2 u6WLmb+hN//BzeFM2h65aEWLn5n3+HtKqyLeyDN3XDCkp58jsXRYx0ZzXt3MHMUUc3Gx YJnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1772075212; x=1772680012; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=JdbCLrnaoujxjLHeo8zEBosU/XG76toy9scmKcrspp8=; b=vAdW0P1zL0v3DaTDgAMteVWycPbuvVA9r97tcWu3G1dRCr5IlUW2rR+POEjof4P6XA t48puPR03OfI+Ou+1f6Jf7HsyS5Uj4YzQ+wdM0m1DMI4QxHF3mgq/+Sq997sN0t41FkG JSc3OEdrYFWC+KZjQg8/qmjwrXT955p9Qw/aWOoateliJbHGIkSaO+Mof9bjop1GYjw0 mu6qoFSd7hSRMfzz2FxNXgtrEjZV8tHlC5n0+P+ZepBC3qJfwOllTDvuDvO8339W5zx6 INOSPkGboAdnUaTrdfyzdJ0f+Jx+71fxEgjPijUAkouXngJGMIIGb9THORYahyHa+Qmg Nskg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwsYDX4ar2IfqQbGstadWBYgzBWtGqOcfR2OW6q/K7py7H0pCeT RWfNYjdS/oiZptr54JgzMaXAaZ05A7NdDfRgaUgWmysxCPBcHLVLkGI9oYCtoMeFNUUER5emy1n lQZaiivuzSnE3F1Ol2dcSM471qbTptDA=
X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzyafxUUxl0VLeAUBqokQNgICbp8np3J0mzSgQQkFbsGspQUnIy8vRU2aP8WYwD H5r2lSXF13Zs3Q8QBzCOyAiG2o5tx+LD0m4l1Ha6L14V/+45PCyuubkcAAv+VJhBp+qMHqdm0Yh 3SMATZTJLaUrFGw/BzgkA8873+Fm34r2ikreaBJy1V+rqOoQy6m0xK5M8yvcFk/bn/cdyUot84s KTYVV2NkPtWyaknerCkVNzNb1XN9oFuoZgxn56FETOfbWbAalK8bFlxYSQTf+tz1S8lB4ySo12j psTQVyg1Sllcz0l/fo8iIOzEbovPaTCj6xJdWCAdjDhGZnMG
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:24c1:b0:437:719d:a74a with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-43997f41834mr1251860f8f.58.1772075211504; Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:06:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20260218194044.1135896.qmail@cr.yp.to> <971672FF-31BE-47C4-A478-8FEB60DE3F7A@symbolic.software> <66970fb7-0645-4fff-8b9e-48f6bad3e007@symbolic.software> <1998222.tdWV9SEqCh@genesis> <ecbe7d7f-4602-4b06-ae7f-aa6812389240@app.fastmail.com> <3a68735f-0282-a88c-82ff-69f1b1bf34b0@nohats.ca>
In-Reply-To: <3a68735f-0282-a88c-82ff-69f1b1bf34b0@nohats.ca>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 19:06:43 -0800
X-Gm-Features: AaiRm52vzftlvOd5j0_pSAe0ctmufN0krJkdO3sIu1wvsbj6H-WQiH7IHn7fAgk
Message-ID: <CACsn0cm-VPOAw2rtha-zHD8k3i9QdCkuiNYzbGVenc68_5fZ2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul=40nohats.ca@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007f3fdf064bb169c1"
Message-ID-Hash: PWIWZJCQOB6BY2QQKYA5MIAWSNGJB7XU
X-Message-ID-Hash: PWIWZJCQOB6BY2QQKYA5MIAWSNGJB7XU
X-MailFrom: watsonbladd@gmail.com
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: TLS List <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/HNdJJJ4NIDdUGE4JBuHfXNhKMVs>
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>

Astra mortemque praestare gradatim

On Wed, Feb 25, 2026, 11:50 AM Paul Wouters <paul=40nohats.ca@dmarc.ietf.org>
wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
>
> > I'm encountering some concerning conduct from the AD regarding my
> blocking objection.
>
> As other people explained to you, "blocking objection" is not a
> thing. Please read RFC 2026.  As such, I did not think this part needed
> further explanations.
>

 Nadim is not the only one with this same serious technical doubt as to the
rationale for publication. The TLS WG made significant changes to how the
registry operates to avoid exactly the disputes we're seeing now. This
apparently didn't work because some people think they need RFCs when they
don't.

To be clear I oppose publication as I don't think there's rough consensus
and I think it's not required to achieve the desired end state in the
registry while furthering confusion about what RFCs means and undoing the
work this WG tried to do to avoid this confusion.

Rough consensus is not an excuse to override serious objections with no
explanation.


> > I've so far continued to receive off-list emails from the AD despite
> repeated explicit requests that they stop emailing me off-list and
> acknowledge my objection on-list, as well as address their inaccurate
> summary of [2].
> >
> > The explanation provided by the AD to me (off-list, despite my explicit
> lack of consent) amounted to the following:
>
> You did not quote other relevant context in the offlist email chain. For
> one, it started with:
>
>         Sending this off list because there are already way too many off
> topic
>         emails in this thread....
>
> I then explained how chartering works. You replied with an email that
> switched context completely:
>
>         I’m still very concerned about your incorrect summarizing of
>         [2] as submitted in my blocking objection, and note that you
>         haven’t acknowledged my blocking objection as I requested or
>         clarified your potential misrepresentation.
>
>         I would sincerely appreciate it if you could please address that
> instead
>         of sending me off list emails asking me how I think standards are
> made.
>
> I replied:
>
>                 The paragraph above the one you quoted gives the context
> you are looking
>                 for, hence I figured it did not need an on list reply to an
>         already busy mail thread with lots of off topic or uninformed
> input.
>
>         [...]
>
> You replied:
>
>         In case I wasn't clear: I'm not taking any messages off-list, and
> would
>         appreciate on-list answers.
>
> To which I replied:
>
>         As I stated in my reply:
>
>                 The paragraph above the one you quoted gives the context
> you are looking
>                 for, hence I figured it did not need an on list reply to an
>                 already busy mail thread with lots of off topic or
> uninformed input.
>
>         I stand by that evaluation.
>
> > I am a bit disturbed to see that the AD resorted to sending me strange
> justifications for their interpretation of [2] despite it clearly stating
> that "In summary, we do not have consensus to publish the document as is.
> [...] The chairs will then redo a working group last call to see if there
> is rough consensus for publishing this document."
>
> You are the second person maliciously reducing the quoted text from the
> TLS WG Chairs consensus call, which reads in full:
>
>
>         The working group last call for pure ML-KEM has concluded, thanks
> to
>         those that participated in the discussion. In summary, we do not
> have
>         consensus to publish the document as is.
>
>         The largest number of participants wanted to publish the document
> as
>         is, however there was also a significant number that wanted changes
>         to the document before publication and a small, but vocal, number
> of
>         participants that do not want the document to be published at all.
>         There were several issues raised, but the main area of contention
> was
>         around having a statement on the security and applicability of this
>         mechanism versus the hybrid key mechanisms.
>
>         Given this, the chairs will move the document back to the "WG
> Document"
>         state and ask the author to work on resolving the issues brought
> up on the
>         list including text to address concerns that there are reasons to
> prefer
>         hybrid over the pure approach. The chairs will then redo a working
> group
>         last call to see if there is rough consensus for publishing this
> document.
>
>
> > I encourage more transparent behavior from this WG, and for the issues I
> raise to be treated in a more transparent manner.
>
> You have made your objection clear. Unless you have additional information
> that has not been shared on the list before, I think it would be good
> to reduce the number of emails you are sending, especially repeated "+1"
> emails on this specific topic that contain no new information.
>
>
> I would also like to remind people of our "Mail List Procedures"
> reminder that we send out every month in case you have not read it
> before or need a reminder:
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cK9kc6MNdYTOfhiPU5vMdRy8mC0/
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Paul, speaking as AD.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to tls-leave@ietf.org
>

v2.40.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status