Hi all, I support publication of this document. Although I am not subscribed to the TLS list (largely out of a desire to spend my time getting work done instead of reading re-treads of the same arguments), I am an active participant and RFC author in the ACME and PLANTS working groups.
This document certainly has running code. I believe this document has also achieved rough consensus: while full unanimity would be better, rough consensus is the fallback <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-3> (RFC 7282, Section 3) for when objections have been raised, addressed, and yet continue to be raised. The core objection is that this document appears to endorse a protocol which some members of this WG consider less secure than other available protocols. This objection has been addressed: the document explicitly does not recommend the use of pure ML-KEM, it merely standardizes it for interoperability. Further objections along this line, raised by any number of people, are not indications of lack of consensus -- they are instead just an example of the scenario in which "five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough consensus <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282#section-7>" (RFC 7282, Section 7). As RFC 7872 says, this working group has become pathological and fallen into dysfunction. This call will be one of the hardest for the chairs to make, but it is their job to sift out the potentially weak signal from the huge amount of background noise. I believe there is sufficient evidence that this document has achieved both rough consensus and running code, and therefore should be published. I hope the chairs agree. Aaron Gable
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
