Hi Paul, > You should be, if this is the tone you intend to use to foster community > and be part of consensus decisions.
You’re right, my tone was certainly off in my responses to Rich. I think folks who frequently attack others (or worse, argue disingenuously, which is thankfully something *I*’ve never done) should never be made anything like, say, AD, and should be removed from that position should they somehow be appointed to it. So you’re completely right, and I’ve already sent an acknowledgment in a previous email. > And instead of firing off 8 messages/day, perhaps gather your > thoughts, separate them from your emotions, and write one constructive > email instead. I sent a couple of emails in response to Rich, but the rest were on different topics and intended to answer different things which each deserved a unique reply. It seems like you’re bundling these things together as if they’re a single thing to which I replied eight times, which isn’t the case. > I agree with Rich about citations of work. It has nothing to do with > personal views. If we cite academic work, we do that via academic > references and not via personal home pages. Not just because of the > misisng peer reviews, but also because of the historical poor hygiene > of long lived URLs on personal home pages. This is unrelated to the > specific individual. Rich did not make a personal attack to you. Your > answer however, was a personal attack. Paul, my work was literally never made available through my “personal home page”, so I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The work, as cited in my PR to draft-ietf-tls-mlkem, is available via ePrint, which is very much a permanent, citable and reliable URL: https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1147 > In general, the TLS WG and its list have become defacto unusable for TLS > development because of the curent barrage of emails by few individuals > on a single topic that will never see covergence (and luckilly, that is > not needed as it doesn't involve MTI items of TLS). > > The current rate is 400 messages/month. This is driving away people and > is doing damage You seem to be pinning this on me, which is… a bit much? Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 8 Jun 2026, at 6:15 PM, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2026, Nadim Kobeissi wrote: > >> I’m not even done. > > You should be, if this is the tone you intend to use to foster community > and be part of consensus decisions. Disagreement is fine. Insulting > is not. And instead of firing off 8 messages/day, perhaps gather your > thoughts, separate them from your emotions, and write one constructive > email instead. > > > I agree with Rich about citations of work. It has nothing to do with > personal views. If we cite academic work, we do that via academic > references and not via personal home pages. Not just because of the > misisng peer reviews, but also because of the historical poor hygiene > of long lived URLs on personal home pages. This is unrelated to the > specific individual. Rich did not make a personal attack to you. Your > answer however, was a personal attack. > > In general, the TLS WG and its list have become defacto unusable for TLS > development because of the curent barrage of emails by few individuals > on a single topic that will never see covergence (and luckilly, that is > not needed as it doesn't involve MTI items of TLS). > > The current rate is 400 messages/month. This is driving away people and > is doing damage to the continued development of TLS far beyond whether > or not there will be a crypto codepoint people can decide to use or not. > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
