[TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list
Dennis Jackson <[email protected]> Thu, 30 Jul 2026 20:35:01 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tls |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3507675880082231484==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------JU8PJxQE5vC8FRbnDTQx37S0"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------JU8PJxQE5vC8FRbnDTQx37S0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Paul,
In the context of improving the quality of discussion on the TLS mailing
list, I *strongly* encourage you to write more concise emails and
refrain, as much as is possible, from repeating arguments you have
already made in the thread.
It is enough to say 'I don't understand why my argument given earlier is
wrong', there is no need to repeat the argument nearly verbatim.
Further responses are inline.
On 30/07/2026 16:30, Paul Romer wrote:
> # Costs and Benefits
>
> [49 lines snipped]
>
> What I did claim was that if the discussion in this group focused on
> specifics such as these, consensus would emerge naturally, just as it
> does in science.
I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with 'wicked problems' [1]
which are ubiquitous in social planning and policy and do not admit such
easy answers.
> But now we have a puzzle. Why is this suggestion about doing a
> cost-benefit analysis perceived as such a threat?
Whilst I trust your cost-benefit analysis was offered in good faith, it
is sorely lacking. In order to support the conclusions you're drawing,
you would need to estimate the value which accrues to the server from
terminating the TLS connection and establish if the additional cost is
negligible with respect to that figure. Instead, you've pulled a number
out of the air to assign a benefit to the client.
I don't think your line of argument can be seriously engaged with.
> # Why You Keep Referring to Downgrade Attacks
>
> [16 lines snipped]
>
> Here we hit the puzzle again. Why is the suggestion that the group
> provide information about B and C perceived as a threat?
Your choice of framing suggests you're received a hostile response to
your suggestion, rather than a rather helpful response offered by an
expert in the field you've decided to contribute your perspective to to.
I would strongly consider familiarizing yourself with the basics of this
field. [2] may be a useful starting point.
> # The TLS Working Group Is in a Hole
>
> I think I understand why the message I submitted made people who
> supported publication of the RFC feel defensive and threatened. I
> think everyone understands why.
>
> Hostility toward something as innocuous as a cost-benefit analysis is
> a sign of the damage that was done by the strategy of misdirection and
> deception that was used to get the RFC published.
This kind of hostile framing very much undermines your claim to want to
improve the quality of discussion on this mailing list. It is completely
unwarranted as a response to Sophie's message and the blatant hypocrisy
reflects rather poorly on you.
Best,
Dennis
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem
[2]
https://web.archive.org/web/20170716034728id_/https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/072.pdf
--------------JU8PJxQE5vC8FRbnDTQx37S0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Paul, </p>
<p>In the context of improving the quality of discussion on the TLS
mailing list, I <b>strongly</b> encourage you to write more
concise emails and refrain, as much as is possible, from repeating
arguments you have already made in the thread. </p>
<p>It is enough to say 'I don't understand why my argument given
earlier is wrong', there is no need to repeat the argument nearly
verbatim. </p>
<p>Further responses are inline. </p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 30/07/2026 16:30, Paul Romer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEzBKQ6NOzQc66T+SEdSvLa2gxjtO77DYUUWuTfr99zV_a-Ofg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"># Costs and Benefits
[49 lines snipped]
What I did claim was that if the discussion in this group focused on
specifics such as these, consensus would emerge naturally, just as it
does in science.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with 'wicked
problems' [1] which are ubiquitous in social planning and policy
and do not admit such easy answers. </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEzBKQ6NOzQc66T+SEdSvLa2gxjtO77DYUUWuTfr99zV_a-Ofg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">But now we have a puzzle. Why is this suggestion about doing a
cost-benefit analysis perceived as such a threat?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Whilst I trust your cost-benefit analysis was offered in good
faith, it is sorely lacking. In order to support the conclusions
you're drawing, you would need to estimate the value which accrues
to the server from terminating the TLS connection and establish if
the additional cost is negligible with respect to that figure.
Instead, you've pulled a number out of the air to assign a benefit
to the client.</p>
<p>I don't think your line of argument can be seriously engaged
with. </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEzBKQ6NOzQc66T+SEdSvLa2gxjtO77DYUUWuTfr99zV_a-Ofg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"># Why You Keep Referring to Downgrade Attacks
[16 lines snipped]
Here we hit the puzzle again. Why is the suggestion that the group
provide information about B and C perceived as a threat?</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Your choice of framing suggests you're received a hostile
response to your suggestion, rather than a rather helpful response
offered by an expert in the field you've decided to contribute
your perspective to to. </p>
<p>I would strongly consider familiarizing yourself with the basics
of this field. [2] may be a useful starting point. </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAEzBKQ6NOzQc66T+SEdSvLa2gxjtO77DYUUWuTfr99zV_a-Ofg@mail.gmail.com">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"># The TLS Working Group Is in a Hole
I think I understand why the message I submitted made people who
supported publication of the RFC feel defensive and threatened. I
think everyone understands why.
Hostility toward something as innocuous as a cost-benefit analysis is
a sign of the damage that was done by the strategy of misdirection and
deception that was used to get the RFC published. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This kind of hostile framing very much undermines your claim to
want to improve the quality of discussion on this mailing list. It
is completely unwarranted as a response to Sophie's message and
the blatant hypocrisy reflects rather poorly on you. </p>
<p>Best,<br>
Dennis</p>
<p>[1] <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem</a></p>
<p>[2]
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170716034728id_/https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/072.pdf">https://web.archive.org/web/20170716034728id_/https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/072.pdf</a></p>
</body>
</html>
--------------JU8PJxQE5vC8FRbnDTQx37S0--
--===============3507675880082231484==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline
X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVExTIG1haWxp
bmcgbGlzdCAtLSB0bHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgc2VuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCB0byB0
bHMtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK
--===============3507675880082231484==--