Yes, indeed. This was a very heated discussion. Thanks for your leadership.
Russ > On May 6, 2026, at 9:20 AM, David Benjamin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks, Deirdre, Joe, and Sean, for all your hard work in navigating these WG > discussions! > > On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 9:09 AM Sean Turner <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Replying to the original consensus call message. >> >> RFC 2418 Section 3.3 lays out the criteria for “rough consensus”: >> >> Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process. >> IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although >> this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view of the >> working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that >> "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or >> persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus >> can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on >> which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% >> of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is >> better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough >> consensus has been reached. >> >> In this case, during WGLC there was an almost 4:1 ratio for progressing this >> draft, which we judge fits within the numeric “more than 51% and less than >> 99%” range suggested by this text for “rough consensus” and represents the >> “dominant view of the working group”. >> >> In assessing rough consensus, we also considered the nature of the >> objections. In reviewing the list traffic, the majority of objections >> related to the status of pure MLDSA versus composite MLDSA-ECC, including >> (1) we should not publish a pure MLDSA specification at all; (2) we should >> recommend composites over pure MLDSA; (3) we should publish the composite >> and pure MLDSA specifications concurrently. While there was substantial >> disagreement on these points, we believe that the discussion on-list >> sufficiently aired the respective points of view and that the right approach >> is fundamentally a judgement call based on weighing various technical >> factors, which each WG participant needs to make for themselves. We see no >> reason to believe that participants were not able to make informed >> judgements. >> >> Conclusion: The chairs believe there is consensus to proceed with >> publication of this draft as an RFC with Recommended=N for those people that >> want to use this algorithm, and a future Standards Action will be needed to >> make a change to Recommended=Y, if anyone has the willingness to undergo >> this heated discussion again. >> >> For transparency purposes, the chairs note that we received a >> complaint/appeal about the consensus call. The message was moderated due to >> a previous notice of moderation; see [1], and the complaint/appeal contains >> a derivative work notice. As a result, the message was not sent to the mail >> list and we will not process the complaint/appeal as-is. If the message is >> resubmitted without the notice, the message can be posted to the mail list >> and we will process the complaint/appeal. >> >> The Chairs, >> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >> >> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/no0lW8r_wIPGF1ZXWB3EaGywh9Q/ >> >>> On Apr 28, 2026, at 16:24, Sean Turner <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi! The chairs have judged that there is consensus to progress this I-D. We >>> will work with the authors to get a new version submitted and we will get >>> to work on the Shepherd Write-Up. >>> >>> The Chairs, >>> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >>> >>>> On Apr 9, 2026, at 15:30, Sean Turner <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is the working group last call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3. Please >>>> review draft-ietf-tls-mldsa [1] and reply to this thread indicating if you >>>> think it is ready for publication or not. If you do not think it is ready >>>> please indicate why. This call will end on April 23, 2026. >>>> >>>> REMINDER: If you have not done so recently, review the TLS WG's Mail List >>>> Procedures; see [2]. >>>> >>>> The Chairs, >>>> Deirdre, Joe, and Sean >>>> >>>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mldsa/ >>>> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/ >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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]
