> I am only saying that an individual work should not be quoted in an RFC as > explanation or justification for a particular recommendation. > Please stop repeating this argument for judging work based on who wrote it, how many people wrote it or where it was published. We got your point. Repeating it doesn’t add anything, and the point itself added nothing to begin with.
Kindly consider allowing the discussion to focus on the work itself instead of repeating this same point, which you’ve now done five times. Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 8 Jun 2026, at 9:23 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Respectfully, what you are asking does not seem consistent with the FATT > process to me. WG participants doing formal verification are quite limited. > Let's warmly welcome their contributions rather than discouraging them. > This is not a FATT thing. The FATT does not review other people’s proofs. > They review drafts and make non-binding recommendations as to whether > analysis is not needed, or perhaps what type of analysis or tools if so[1]. > Their decision is not binding on the WG. > > I am only saying that an individual work should not be quoted in an RFC as > explanation or justification for a particular recommendation. We don’t quote > FATT findings in RFCs either. > > [1] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-fatt > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
