2026-06-28 20:18 GMT+02:00 Kevin Milner <[email protected]>:
>> On 28 Jun 2026, at 14:01, D. J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> no In-Reply-To header (which is slightly annoying to produce when one
>>> was not a participant in the list previously).
>>
>> Did you complain about the lack of an In-Reply-To header field in
>> multiple messages that have already shown up _supporting_ the document,
>> such as the message from NSA's Mike Jenkins?
>> […]
>> But there's also a much more basic point here about fairness. How can it
>> be okay for new TLS participants to support the spec, and not okay for
>> new TLS participants to oppose the spec?
>
> I assume you mean my email, given that (from a quick skim, admittedly) I’m
> the only other new TLS participant in support. And I agree with Filippo:
> frankly, my opinion should probably be less weighted on this matter!
Indeed. (As much as I personally like you, Kevin!)
I'm not the In-Reply-To police, I was linked to what amounts to an external
influence campaign, so I made sure the WG was aware of it and correlated it to
the three (now five) most recent emails that are consistent with it.
Not sure how "the degree to which individuals have participated in the WG in
the past should be part of how their opinion is weighted into calling the
consensus of the WG" could be interpreted in good faith to refer only to
opposing opinions.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
