For the record: I deserve a warning from the chairs/AD/etc. for this email, and it’s not the sort of conduct I’d usually tolerate from myself on this list or anywhere else.
I am especially allergic to discussions of judging scientific work based on reputational aspects and not on its value or content, especially when it’s unusually easy to replicate and validate that scientific content, and understand that this topic triggers me. I do agree for the record that my conduct in the previous email was not what I would expect from anyone else on this list, and in general I do not intend to behave like this. Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 8 Jun 2026, at 5:23 PM, Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dude! This analysis was done quickly because it was a natural extension of > the ProVerif models from the initial publications we wrote formally modeling > TLS 1.3, which was (I think) the first time such formal models were > contributed to draft 13+, and for which we won an award at IEEE S&P. I was a > co-author of this analysis! Extending these models and writing up this > follow-up analysis was trivial! > > > And you’d be wrong. > > I absolutely do not believe you even for a second. You are completely full of > it. If this was a single-author paper on ePrint by Cas Cremers, you wouldn’t > have in a million years brought up the authorship or the venue of the paper > as a reason to doubt it! > > If you can’t understand the work, then either encourage those who can or keep > your irritating, vexatious and obviously biased methods of “judging” the > value of scientific work to yourself! Jesus, what a nightmare this list is > sometimes! > > > I am sorry you’re offended by that, but I am not going to change my view. > > People don’t owe you the labor of going through some stupid peer review cycle > to legitimize a review of which the scientific contributions are super easy > to validate, and this my follow-up paper isn’t the sort of thing that gets > published anywhere to begin with, simply because it’s not enough work! It’s > too short! If I wanted to target a venue I’d probably need to extend the work > with CryptoVerif proofs, or failing that, make some contributions to the > underlying tool itself (as Blanchet and Jacomme did with their CryptoVerif > analysis of the TLS hybrid construction — they ended up contributing to > CryptoVerif itself as a result and expanding its capability of analyzing > post-quantum hybrids.) > > Man, I can see why people like Karthik and Cas no longer participate much on > this list. They’re too high-brow and dignified to be as transparent about how > annoying some of the people on this list are, so they maintain their dignity > and just bow out. Fortunately, I’m not like that, so I’ll tell it to your > face: if you don’t know how to critique a work and think it’s better to > instead ask questions about the author’s name or the venue, I would advise > you, instead, to shut up! > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > >> On 8 Jun 2026, at 5:15 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I am absolutely certain that if the paper was *also* published on ePrint and >> *also* had a single author, but that author’s name was Karthikeyan Bhargavan >> or Cas Cremers, you wouldn’t be repeating this deeply brain-dead line of >> reasoning. >> >> And you’d be wrong. I am not qualified to review your work. Nor am I >> qualified to review most of what Karthik or Cas writes about. Instead I >> depend on peer review and I do not want a solo effort put into an RFC >> without other reviews. >> >> I am sorry you’re offended by that, but I am not going to change my view. >> >> >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
