[TLS] Re: Discussion about the Deployment Decision

This is a really off-putting reply that does not make the list a more welcoming place for anyone.

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

> On 3 Aug 2026, at 12:18 PM, Sophie Schmieg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> first off, given your now repeated pattern of showing disrespect to people based on their perceived gender, and going back to the previous conversation topic of proper use of honorifics, I will have to insist that you will address me by my last name and honorific from now on. In other words, that's "Dr. Schmieg" to you. Let us hope for both our sake's that this helps you with your unconscious biases to make the discussion less personal.
> Secondly, it seems that your foray into predicate logic is even more precarious than your larger expedition into the field of cryptography. My stance has been very consistent: I generally consider the non-normative recommendations parts of IETF documents of lesser importance and am willing to compromise rather quickly on them, if it helps the standard to emerge more quickly. I further consider a recommendation flag, following the language laid out in RFC 2119 to be preferable to the exercise in mathiness (great term, by the way) of attempting to model expected utility. Both are rather silly, given that we are talking about a handful of implementers most of whom are present on this list, but one is a lot sillier than the other. In other words, my preferences admit a clearly documented well-ordering.
> But even if they didn't, as Dennis pointed out to you in his first email, standardization is a wicked problem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem>, and behind the dry technical documents is a process best described as a social coordination problem, as studied by sociologists and even, when they are especially talented, economists. As such applying predicate logic to the statements on this email list will at best make Wittgenstein cry, and certainly not solve any underlying disagreements.
> 
> Best,
> Dr. Sophie Schmieg
> 
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 8:09 AM Salz, Rich <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> I’m confused.  Paul, what do you want to happen? Do you understand the IETF workflow and what “IETF last call” means in terms of process?
>> 
>> Do you know what RECOMMENDED=N means? Quoting [1]:
>> If the "Recommended" column is set to "N", it does not necessarily 
>> mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that the item either 
>> has not been through the IETF consensus process, has limited 
>> applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases. If the 
>> "Recommended" column is set to "D," the item is discouraged and 
>> SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT be used, depending upon the situation; 
>> consult the item's references for clarity.
>> The IETF expresses an opinion by saying “RECOMMENDED=N”. Many in the IETF recognize that others — often those deploying and purchasing systems — will have a different opinion.
>> 
>> 
>> [1] https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters#tls-parameters-8
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Sophie Schmieg | Information Security Engineer | ISE Crypto | [email protected] <mailto:[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]