Dear David, > This seems like a tremendous waste of time. The chairs should exclude from > their consensus determination mail from people who are not limiting their > comments to clarifying text and are instead relitigating the same previously > discussed arguments. There is no reason to believe the same people going off > topic now, will not simply go off topic on yet another WGLC.
I’m surprised by the aggressive nature of this reaction. This is TLS we’re talking about; it’s important to do things right, especially when we risk adopting new functionality that could very well introduce a weaker mode of operation into the standard that encrypts the Internet. Furthermore, there’s no need to make negative assumptions about peoples’ behavior! We’re all on the same team here, and we all want a more secure Internet! :-) I’m a cryptographer who did a bunch of work on TLS 1.3 and even I was caught by surprise regarding the advanced nature of this controversial and likely harmful draft. I think when Rich made his suggestion, he was doing so realizing that communication on this list regarding this particular topic has become conflated and a bit of a quagmire, and that a clean reset may be beneficial. Given the importance of this discussion’s target, its potential impact, and the historic nature of the decision, I think it’s important now more than ever to do things right. Otherwise, the WG opens itself up to criticism of having rammed this thing through despite a lack of clarity on consensus, impact and other elements. Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 20 Feb 2026, at 5:43 PM, David Adrian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I suggest that the current WGLC be scrapped. Wait at least a week for the > > traffic to dry up. Then issue a new WGLC with a completely different > > subject line and point out that discussions on previous email threads do > > not count as part of determining consensus, if you can do that. Run that > > WGLC until the doc-cutoff for the IETF meeting, and put it on the agenda > > asking folks to not repeat what they’ve already posted. > > This seems like a tremendous waste of time. The chairs should exclude from > their consensus determination mail from people who are not limiting their > comments to clarifying text and are instead relitigating the same previously > discussed arguments. There is no reason to believe the same people going off > topic now, will not simply go off topic on yet another WGLC. > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 11:19 AM Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> > wrote: >> This seems wise to me, and a bare minimum indeed. >> >> Nadim Kobeissi >> Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software <https://symbolic.software/> >> >>> On 20 Feb 2026, at 5:11 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> FWIW, I read that as meaning a fresh WGLC not one limited to the >>> diff. And I think it'd be unwise to process this as if it weren't >>> as controversial as it clearly is. >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> I suggest that the current WGLC be scrapped. Wait at least a week for the >>> traffic to dry up. Then issue a new WGLC with a completely different >>> subject line and point out that discussions on previous email threads do >>> not count as part of determining consensus, if you can do that. Run that >>> WGLC until the doc-cutoff for the IETF meeting, and put it on the agenda >>> asking folks to not repeat what they’ve already posted. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list -- [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [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]
