Yes, in all honesty, one must admit that the chairs deserve some credit. There is always room for improvement, but that’s a given in all cases.
Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 6 May 2026, at 4:41 PM, Tim Hollebeek > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Deirdre, Joe, and Sean for all your hard work, and being willing to > serve in roles that might be a strong contender for hardest chair role at > IETF. > > -Tim > From: John Mattsson <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2026 10:36 AM > To: David Benjamin <[email protected]>; Sean Turner <[email protected]> > Cc: TLS List <[email protected]> > Subject: [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3 > > Agree, thanks Deirdre, Joe, and Sean for your hard work and leadership! > > From: David Benjamin <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 6 May 2026 at 15:20 > To: Sean Turner <[email protected]> > Cc: TLS List <[email protected]> > Subject: [TLS] Re: Working Group Last Call for Use of ML-DSA in TLS 1.3 > > -- > > 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/ > <https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/no0lW8r_wIPGF1ZXWB3EaGywh9Q/___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzo1MDE2ZjM5NjQ0Y2E5M2ViODdhMjQxNDFmYjMxNDFhMjo3OjUxNGE6OTkyYmQzYjEzMmY0YmM1MjY4NDg2ZTMyYmExYjhlZjNhMGE3YzA3N2QzZjRiOGE3NTc4MTk5YzY5Yjc5NTMzMzpoOlQ6Rg> > > 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/ > <https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-mldsa/___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzo1MDE2ZjM5NjQ0Y2E5M2ViODdhMjQxNDFmYjMxNDFhMjo3OjY1NDg6NzljOWU4ZmYxZDhiMWI4ODQ0MDEwNTk2MzVhOTdmZGQ0Y2VlMTk5ZWQ3NzgzYmFmMWU0NDU1YjdhNzIzNjVjYjpoOlQ6Rg> > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/ > <https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ucdImHExlbOf4Q3BCG81gjzi2xE/___.YXAzOmRpZ2ljZXJ0OmE6bzo1MDE2ZjM5NjQ0Y2E5M2ViODdhMjQxNDFmYjMxNDFhMjo3OjhlNGE6Zjc2ZTk4ZDc2MTZjZTg4NDdkNjJiNTNlOTBmMWI1ZmU0YzZmNDAwZTVmNGM4YjczNWM1YjM0YTQ4NmZjNjVlYzpoOlQ6Rg> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
