My apologies for my follow up e-mail that should have been included in my previous response, but I also wanted to caution that there is insufficient evidence to make the conclusions as opined by the accuser. It is a deliberate attempt to both create stratification/classes within the IETF and, further, could be construed as a form of gas lighting, or worse defamation, due to being presented as fact without evidence.
Again, when an IETF vote/consensus gathering activity skews into this level of mudslinging, consensus is unable to be declared appropriately by virtue of what rough consensus is. I hope everyone can cool off and discuss this on an intellectual level as it relates to the identified risks of solo ML-KEM and procedural level as it relates to the IETF. I definitely don’t want to see non-evidence backed accusations being thrown around on a large public mailing list on my Sunday morning. Cheers, Andrew > On Jun 28, 2026, at 12:11 PM, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2026, at 11:45 AM, Filippo Valsorda <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > I’ve seen these alleged “influence campaigns” both ways with the most > egregious, and quite recent, being an IETF chair both influencing and > launching a personal attack on a contributor. It was and is as appalling as > it sounds. > > Long story short, pointing fingers doesn’t amount to much and is a > significantly lower standard than I’d have expected within the actions of > those who dress themselves as mature IETF participants. > > Frankly, given this mudslinging has already reached these depths, it’s clear > that this topic still needs further debate and discussion. > > Rushing the publication of this document under this environment would be > careless at best, and unfortunately, quite far from IETF’s own procedures at > worst (and a whole lot more). > > Best, > Andrew _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
