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

On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 9:26 AM Jacob Appelbaum <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> Rob's (it was Rob, right?) suggestion appears to be a viable fallback.
> The Independent Stream does not require IETF rough consensus, although
> it is not an automatic bypass: the authors and ISE would have to pursue
> it, and the IESG would still conduct the RFC 5742 conflict review
> [0][1]. I note that the authors have largely not engaged in discussion.
>

I think I reached for it, but it's not a novel thing. We do this all of the
time.

For the rocky parts of the discussion: the people that give you the name
they use in real life and tell you that they work at the NSA are not the
ones to worry about. That's fair dealing, and we try to be open to
everyone, even when there are pretty serious philosophical disagreements.

I prefer publishing via ISE, since people are going to use this spec. But
Informational through the IETF is not something I would appeal. That is
because I favor publishing without delay, and even wrote an RFC about it. :)

thanks,
Rob

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