*
While the exact phrase "blocking objection" may not appear in RFC 2026 or RFC
2418, the concept of a substantive technical objection that prevents the
declaration of consensus is foundational to IETF procedures.
Free advice, feel free to ignore: you will find it more productive to use the
terminology that the IETF uses.
*
As detailed in RFC 7282 ("On Consensus and Humming in the IETF"), rough
consensus cannot be legitimately declared until all substantive technical
issues have been addressed by the working group. If a participant raises a
severe technical concern, as I believe I have done regarding the security and
design of draft-ietf-tls-mlkem, the chairs must ensure it is adequately
resolved or explained before moving forward.
You misunderstand what “addressed” means here. A perfectly reasonable response
is “the issue has been discussed by the WG and they still want to move
forward.” As another recent example, the LAMPS WG went ahead even though one
participant (repeatedly:) raised patent concerns.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
