I am deeply disturbed by the openly hostile behavior of the AD towards honest good-faith participants, including but not limited to describing them as “malicious” simply for not agreeing with him on opinions or interpretation of WG chair emails.
I don’t believe that anyone on this list is acting maliciously, and have endeavored to express my stances based on their technical merit with full respect for everyone. I ask that the chairs and especially ADs continue to act professionally, transparently and inclusively. Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 25 Feb 2026, at 8:51 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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] _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
