On Wed, 25 Feb 2026, Nadim Kobeissi wrote:
I'm encountering some concerning conduct from the AD regarding my blocking
objection.
As other people explained to you, "blocking objection" is not a
thing. Please read RFC 2026. As such, I did not think this part needed
further explanations.
I've so far continued to receive off-list emails from the AD despite repeated
explicit requests that they stop emailing me off-list and acknowledge my
objection on-list, as well as address their inaccurate summary of [2].
The explanation provided by the AD to me (off-list, despite my explicit lack of
consent) amounted to the following:
You did not quote other relevant context in the offlist email chain. For
one, it started with:
Sending this off list because there are already way too many off topic
emails in this thread....
I then explained how chartering works. You replied with an email that
switched context completely:
I’m still very concerned about your incorrect summarizing of
[2] as submitted in my blocking objection, and note that you
haven’t acknowledged my blocking objection as I requested or
clarified your potential misrepresentation.
I would sincerely appreciate it if you could please address that instead
of sending me off list emails asking me how I think standards are made.
I replied:
The paragraph above the one you quoted gives the context you are looking
for, hence I figured it did not need an on list reply to an
already busy mail thread with lots of off topic or uninformed input.
[...]
You replied:
In case I wasn't clear: I'm not taking any messages off-list, and would
appreciate on-list answers.
To which I replied:
As I stated in my reply:
The paragraph above the one you quoted gives the context you
are looking
for, hence I figured it did not need an on list reply to an
already busy mail thread with lots of off topic or uninformed
input.
I stand by that evaluation.
I am a bit disturbed to see that the AD resorted to sending me strange justifications for
their interpretation of [2] despite it clearly stating that "In summary, we do not
have consensus to publish the document as is. [...] The chairs will then redo a working
group last call to see if there is rough consensus for publishing this document."
You are the second person maliciously reducing the quoted text from the
TLS WG Chairs consensus call, which reads in full:
The working group last call for pure ML-KEM has concluded, thanks to
those that participated in the discussion. In summary, we do not have
consensus to publish the document as is.
The largest number of participants wanted to publish the document as
is, however there was also a significant number that wanted changes
to the document before publication and a small, but vocal, number of
participants that do not want the document to be published at all.
There were several issues raised, but the main area of contention was
around having a statement on the security and applicability of this
mechanism versus the hybrid key mechanisms.
Given this, the chairs will move the document back to the "WG Document"
state and ask the author to work on resolving the issues brought up on
the
list including text to address concerns that there are reasons to prefer
hybrid over the pure approach. The chairs will then redo a working group
last call to see if there is rough consensus for publishing this
document.
I encourage more transparent behavior from this WG, and for the issues I raise
to be treated in a more transparent manner.
You have made your objection clear. Unless you have additional information
that has not been shared on the list before, I think it would be good
to reduce the number of emails you are sending, especially repeated "+1"
emails on this specific topic that contain no new information.
I would also like to remind people of our "Mail List Procedures"
reminder that we send out every month in case you have not read it
before or need a reminder:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cK9kc6MNdYTOfhiPU5vMdRy8mC0/
Thanks in advance.
Paul, speaking as AD.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
