[TLS] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-08 (Ends 20 26-07-08)

Hi Ken,

I just wanted to point out the irony of directing Eliot to view an off-list email regarding the importance of keeping the emails on-list. I’ll trust you that such an email may violate the IETF standards for posting.

Given how much you care about this, I assume you’ll want to file a complaint for the offlist email by the (unnamed) “leading cryptographer” that was sent to Eliot. As a show of good faith in your interests, I would support any such complaint filed with the IETF. Feel free to reach out to me if you would like assistance with filing it. 

Best,

Mark

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 14, 2026, at 7:57 AM, Ken Kubota <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I am highlighting an evident conflict of interest, not attacking the individuals themselves.
> 
> This is part of a technical debate, particularly if such a massive presence of SIGINT operatives is active within this working group [1] and if their behavior is suspect, e.g., openly accepting or ignoring violations of standard cryptographic practices already described in earlier RFCs, other governmental standards (e.g., Germany's BSI, the NIST equivalent), and protocols (OpenSSH). I had cited the RFC, the BSI standard, and OpenSSH announcements in my public response to the NSA official [2]. Neither he nor anyone else on this mailing list has provided a plausible rationale.
> 
> The larger the conflict of interest, the larger, unfortunately, the proportion of the debate devoted to analyzing this. There is already a double-digit number of SIGINT operatives present here (NSA, GCHQ, CSE), and these are only those identified so far. All of them vote only and do not engage in any debate, except for one [2], who also subsequently fell silent as the contradictions became too glaring. It is concerning that some individuals fail to address this issue. This might also indicate additional conflicts of interest.
> 
> So please do not conflate a discussion regarding conflicts of interest with a personal attack. The focus is clearly on the conflict of interest (and including related aspects, e.g., obvious bias or actions that may be interpreted as such).
> 
> Please always post publicly to the mailing list in line with IETF standards.
> You were reminded yesterday in an offlist email by a leading cryptographer not to allow the debate to shift from the public forum to private channels.
> Often, such attempts are part of a broader strategy to manipulate discourse.
> Framing a conflict-of-interest debate as an ad hominem attack is also inappropriate.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Ken Kubota
> 
> ____________________________________________________
> 
> Ken Kubota
> https://doi.org/10.4444/100
> 
> 
> 
> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/lnSPh3Wr6vgdjivHGj1mxCun3Rs/
> "This would imply:
> - U.S. intelligence service: 6
> - UK intelligence service: 3
> - Canadian intelligence service: 2"
> 
> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vFu5iq8gPQFByj4L0hkCEAJUR9I/
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 14.07.2026 um 10:23 schrieb Eliot Lear <[email protected]>:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]