I am highlighting an evident conflict of interest, not attacking the 
individuals themselves.

This is part of a technical debate, particularly if such a massive presence of 
SIGINT operatives is active within this working group [1] and if their behavior 
is suspect, e.g., openly accepting or ignoring violations of standard 
cryptographic practices already described in earlier RFCs, other governmental 
standards (e.g., Germany's BSI, the NIST equivalent), and protocols (OpenSSH). 
I had cited the RFC, the BSI standard, and OpenSSH announcements in my public 
response to the NSA official [2]. Neither he nor anyone else on this mailing 
list has provided a plausible rationale.

The larger the conflict of interest, the larger, unfortunately, the proportion 
of the debate devoted to analyzing this. There is already a double-digit number 
of SIGINT operatives present here (NSA, GCHQ, CSE), and these are only those 
identified so far. All of them vote only and do not engage in any debate, 
except for one [2], who also subsequently fell silent as the contradictions 
became too glaring. It is concerning that some individuals fail to address this 
issue. This might also indicate additional conflicts of interest.

So please do not conflate a discussion regarding conflicts of interest with a 
personal attack. The focus is clearly on the conflict of interest (and 
including related aspects, e.g., obvious bias or actions that may be 
interpreted as such).

Please always post publicly to the mailing list in line with IETF standards.
You were reminded yesterday in an offlist email by a leading cryptographer not 
to allow the debate to shift from the public forum to private channels.
Often, such attempts are part of a broader strategy to manipulate discourse.
Framing a conflict-of-interest debate as an ad hominem attack is also 
inappropriate.

Kind regards,

Ken Kubota

____________________________________________________

Ken Kubota
https://doi.org/10.4444/100



[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/lnSPh3Wr6vgdjivHGj1mxCun3Rs/
"This would imply:
- U.S. intelligence service: 6
- UK intelligence service: 3
- Canadian intelligence service: 2"

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vFu5iq8gPQFByj4L0hkCEAJUR9I/



> Am 14.07.2026 um 10:23 schrieb Eliot Lear <[email protected]>:

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to