[TLS] Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list
"Filippo Valsorda" <[email protected]> Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:53:54 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tls |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============1968787299607741079== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=d50ce96a8025f29edddfdc1c8337085cc1faa8bf --d50ce96a8025f29edddfdc1c8337085cc1faa8bf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Orr, Emphasis added: > Then, have you tried tallying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG part= icipants or people with demonstrated expertise=E2=80=9D *using your own = methodology*? Did you land at a result significantly different from =E2=80= =9Croughly 7/10=E2=80=9D? I have high confidence that Tanja, or you if you want to help, can give = it a useful try. 2026-07-31 19:10 GMT+02:00 Orr Dunkelman <[email protected]>: > As the ADs did not publicly release the criteria relevant to what is c= onsidered "prior involvement" (would participation in one discussion bef= ore the ML-KEM sufficient to be considered in this set of voices?) nor w= hat are the "experienced people" they deemed to be worthy of being heard= (i.e., newcomers who are experienced), it is a bit impossible to make t= he statistics you have asked Tanja to make. Actually, even putting aside= mailing issues, moderation problems, and assuming that indeed all the v= otes were indeed public, no one but the ADs can make these statistics. T= his is exactly what reasonable people asked for in this mailing list (in= cluding people from academia, industry and government) - to get these cr= iteria publicly available. Hence, contacting IESG, IAB, the UN, or even = the local fire brigade, is useless until the ADs supply this information= .=20 >=20 > Furthermore, during the discussion I've pointed out that one of the co= -designers of MLKEM found the idea of standardizing only MLKEM to be pre= mature. I am sure that when assigning weights to participants, one of th= e guys inventing the thing (and especially as this particular individual= has years of experience in industry, so this is not just a theoretical = computer scientist with no understanding of the real world), should prob= ably get a somewhat higher weight than even people who participated in p= ast TLS discussions. As the ADs did not report counting this specific in= dividual's "vote" (that says that the entire idea is bad) it is unclear = whether it was taken into account. Actually, I hope to ask all the relev= ant co-designers when I meet them in future conferences [relevant by my = own personal secret criteria]. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 5:36=E2=80=AFPM Filippo Valsorda <[email protected]= ilippo.io> wrote: >> __ >> Excellent, sounds like you land at the same result as the chairs when= tallying support by all participants. That=E2=80=99s promising! >>=20 >> Then, have you tried tallying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG par= ticipants or people with demonstrated expertise=E2=80=9D using your own = methodology? Did you land at a result significantly different from =E2=80= =9Croughly 7/10=E2=80=9D? >>=20 >> Assuming you=E2=80=99re not looking a priori for something to object = to, if you come to the same conclusion using your own methodology, I don= =E2=80=99t see what good demanding an itemized list would do. >>=20 >> If you do come to a significantly different result, you can share you= r methodology in your appeal, and let the ADs, IESG, or IAB assess it. >>=20 >> 2026-07-31 15:55 GMT+02:00 Tanja Lange <[email protected]>: >>> Dear Eliot, dear all, >>> I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor and a= gainst. >>> The chairs announced that by some process of discarding or weighing = some votes >>> they reach 70% in favor. To quote this verbatim=20 >>> "However, if we look at pre-existing WG =20 >>> participants or people with demonstrated expertise, roughly 7/10 WG = =20 >>> participants favor advancing the document, which shows rough consens= us =20 >>> to move the document forward." >>> The requests I've seen, starting right after the chairs announced th= eir >>> decision that there was consensus in favor of the document, are aski= ng for >>> which input was discarded or counted higher or lower. I cannot do the >>> "homework" of checking this because I don't know the mechanism used.=20 >>>=20 >>> Additionally, the email asking for responses was sent with >>> Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <[email protected]> >>> so that replies would go to Joe's address and to the list only if th= e sender >>> chooses to reply to all (or edits the header manually), so there mig= ht be some >>> emails that didn't go to the list and which therefore I cannot count= when doing >>> my homework. >>>=20 >>> Finally, there are reports of messages not appearing on list despite= the >>> sender responding with the release code. We have seen some messages = containing >>> release codes appear on list (I hadn't seen that in any previous dis= cussion). >>> My understanding is that the chairs see those, and maybe that's wher= e the >>> chairs saw additional support, but I cannot count these in my homewo= rk. >>>=20 >>> Hence, I would like to support the request for transparency of how t= he 7/10 >>> (quoted above) was reached. >>>=20 >>> All the best >>> Tanja >>>=20 >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> >=20 >>> > On 31.07.2026 12:37, Ken Kubota wrote: >>> >=20 >>> > There have been repeated requests [1, 2] that the working grou= p chairs release the participant chart/list/table publicly that supports= the 70 % claim ("7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" [3]= ). >>> >=20 >>> > Unnecessary. All the information used by the chairs is publicly a= vailable on >>> > this list. Do your own homework. Stop making work for others. >>> >=20 >>> >=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] >>> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>=20 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] --d50ce96a8025f29edddfdc1c8337085cc1faa8bf Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title></head><body><div>Hi Orr,</div= ><div><br></div><div>Emphasis added:</div><div><br></div><blockquote typ= e=3D"cite"><div>Then, have you tried tallying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-ex= isting WG participants or people with demonstrated expertise=E2=80=9D <b= >using your own methodology</b>? Did you land at a result significantly = different from =E2=80=9Croughly 7/10=E2=80=9D?<br></div></blockquote><di= v><br></div><div>I have high confidence that Tanja, or you if you want t= o help, can give it a useful try.</div><div><br></div><div>2026-07-31 19= :10 GMT+02:00 Orr Dunkelman <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">o= [email protected]</a>>:</div><blockquote type=3D"cite" id=3D"qt" sty= le=3D""><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>As the ADs did not publicly release the cr= iteria relevant to what is considered "prior involvement" (would partici= pation in one discussion before the ML-KEM sufficient to be conside= red in this set of voices?) nor what are the "experienced people" they d= eemed to be worthy of being heard (i.e., newcomers who are experienced),= it is a bit impossible to make the statistics you have asked Tanja to m= ake. Actually, even putting aside mailing issues, moderation problems, a= nd assuming that indeed all the votes were indeed public, no one but the= ADs can make these statistics. This is exactly what reasonable people a= sked for in this mailing list (including people from academia, industry = and government) - to get these criteria publicly available. Hence, conta= cting IESG, IAB, the UN, or even the local fire brigade, is useless unti= l the ADs supply this information. </div><div><br></div><div>Furthe= rmore, during the discussion I've pointed out that one of the co-designe= rs of MLKEM found the idea of standardizing only MLKEM to be premat= ure. I am sure that when assigning weights to participants, one of the g= uys inventing the thing (and especially as this particular individual ha= s years of experience in industry, so this is not just a theoretica= l computer scientist with no understanding of the real world), should pr= obably get a somewhat higher weight than even people who participated in= past TLS discussions. As the ADs did not report counting this specific = individual's "vote" (that says that the entire idea is bad) it is unclea= r whether it was taken into account. Actually, I hope to ask all the rel= evant co-designers when I meet them in future conferences [relevant by m= y own personal secret criteria].</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><= div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div class=3D"qt-gmail= _quote qt-gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"qt-gmail_attr= ">On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 5:36=E2=80=AFPM Filippo Valsorda <<a href=3D= "mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:</div= ><blockquote class=3D"qt-gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top:0px;margin-rig= ht:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-= left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex;"= ><div><u></u><br></div><div><div>Excellent, sounds like you land at the = same result as the chairs when tallying support by all participants. Tha= t=E2=80=99s promising!</div><div><br></div><div>Then, have you tried tal= lying support by =E2=80=9Cpre-existing WG participants or people with de= monstrated expertise=E2=80=9D using your own methodology? Did you land a= t a result significantly different from =E2=80=9Croughly 7/10=E2=80=9D?<= /div><div><br></div><div>Assuming you=E2=80=99re not looking a priori fo= r something to object to, if you come to the same conclusion using your = own methodology, I don=E2=80=99t see what good demanding an itemized lis= t would do.</div><div><br></div><div>If you do come to a significantly d= ifferent result, you can share your methodology in your appeal, and let = the ADs, IESG, or IAB assess it.</div><div><br></div><div>2026-07-31 15:= 55 GMT+02:00 Tanja Lange <<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>>:</div><blockquote type= =3D"cite" id=3D"qt-m_-6319647677144171176qt"><div>Dear Eliot, dear all,<= /div><div>I can tally the emails on list, which were about even in favor= and against.</div><div>The chairs announced that by some process of dis= carding or weighing some votes</div><div>they reach 70% in favor. To quo= te this verbatim </div><div>"However, if we look at pre-existing WG= = = </div><div>participants or people with demonstrated expertise, roughly 7= /10 WG = = </div><div>participants favor advancing the document, which shows rough = consensus &nb= sp; </div><div>to m= ove the document forward."</div><div>The requests I've seen, starting ri= ght after the chairs announced their</div><div>decision that there was c= onsensus in favor of the document, are asking for</div><div>which input = was discarded or counted higher or lower. I cannot do the</div><div>"hom= ework" of checking this because I don't know the mechanism used. </= div><div><br></div><div>Additionally, the email asking for responses was= sent with</div><div>Reply-To: Joseph Salowey <<a href=3D"mailto:joe@= salowey.net" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>></div><div>so that= replies would go to Joe's address and to the list only if the sender</d= iv><div>chooses to reply to all (or edits the header manually), so there= might be some</div><div>emails that didn't go to the list and which the= refore I cannot count when doing</div><div>my homework.</div><div><br></= div><div>Finally, there are reports of messages not appearing on list de= spite the</div><div>sender responding with the release code. We have see= n some messages containing</div><div>release codes appear on list (I had= n't seen that in any previous discussion).</div><div>My understanding is= that the chairs see those, and maybe that's where the</div><div>chairs = saw additional support, but I cannot count these in my homework.</div><d= iv><br></div><div>Hence, I would like to support the request for transpa= rency of how the 7/10</div><div>(quoted above) was reached.</div><div><b= r></div><div>All the best</div><div>Tanja</div><div><br></div><div>On Fr= i, Jul 31, 2026 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:</div><div>> Hi= ,</div><div>> </div><div>> On 31.07.2026 12:37, Ken Kubota wr= ote:</div><div>> </div><div>> There h= ave been repeated requests [1, 2] that the working group chairs release = the participant chart/list/table publicly that supports the 70 % claim (= "7/10 WG participants favor advancing the document" [3]).</div><div>>= </div><div>> Unnecessary. All the information used by the= chairs is publicly available on</div><div>> this list. Do your= own homework. Stop making work for others.</div><div>> </= div><div>> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><d= iv><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>> ___________________= ____________________________</div><div>> TLS mailing list -- <a = href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a></div><di= v>> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:tls-leave@= ietf.org" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a></div><div><br></div><= div>_______________________________________________</div><div>TLS mailin= g list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">tls@iet= f.org</a></div><div>To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mail= to:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a></div><di= v><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>_____________________= __________________________</div><div> TLS mailing list -- <a href=3D"mai= lto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a></div><div> To unsub= scribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"= _blank">[email protected]</a></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div= ><br></div></body></html> --d50ce96a8025f29edddfdc1c8337085cc1faa8bf-- --===============1968787299607741079== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVExTIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdCAtLSB0bHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgc2VuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCB0byB0 bHMtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============1968787299607741079==--