[blintz]

Standardizing a codepoint for a pure ML-KEM version of TLS is fine. TLS clients always get to choose what ciphersuites they support, and nothing forces you to use it.

He has essentially accused anyone who shares this view of secretly working for the NSA. This is ridiculous.

You can see him do this on the mailing list: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/?q=djb

[dataflow]

> standardizing a code point (literally a number) for a pure ML-KEM version of TLS is fine. TLS clients always get to choose what ciphersuites they support, and nothing forces you to use it.

I think the whole point is that some people would be forced to use it due to other standards picking previously-standardized ciphers. He explains and cites examples of this in the past.

> He has essentially accused anyone who shares this view of secretly working for the NSA. This is ridiculous.

He comes with historical and procedural evidence of bad faith. Why is this ridiculous? If you see half the submitted ciphers being broken, and lies and distortions being used to shove the others through, and historical evidence of the NSA using standards as a means to weaken ciphers, why wouldn't you equate that to working for the NSA (or something equally bad)?

[blintz]

> I think the whole point is that some people would be forced to use it due to other standards picking previously-standardized ciphers. He explains and cites examples of this in the past.

If an organization wants to force its clients or servers to use pure ML-KEM, they can already do this using any means they like. The standardization of a TLS ciphersuite is besides the point.

> He comes with historical and procedural evidence of bad faith. Why is this ridiculous?

Yes, the NSA has nefariously influenced standards processes. That does not mean that in each and every standards process (especially the ones that don't go your way) you can accuse everyone who disagrees with you, on the merits, of having some ulterior motive or secret relationship with the NSA. That is exactly what he has done repeatedly, both on his blog and on the list.

> why wouldn't you equate that to working for the NSA (or something equally bad)?

For the simple reason that you should not accuse another person of working for the NSA without real proof of that! The standard of proof for an accusation like that cannot be "you disagree with me".

[dataflow]

> The standard of proof for an accusation like that cannot be "you disagree with me".

How is that the standard he's applying, though? Just reading his post, it's clearly "you're blatantly and repeatedly lying, and distorting the facts, and not even addressing my arguments". Surely "you disagree with me" is not an accurate characterization of this?

[gnfargbl]

Let's invert that thinking. Imagine you're the "security area director" referenced. You know that DJB's starting point is assumed bad faith on your part, and that because of that starting point DJB appears bound in all cases to assume that you're a malicious liar.

Given that starting point, you believe that anything other than complete capitulation to DJB is going to be rejected. How are you supposed to negotiate with DJB? Should you try?

[adgjlsfhk1]

To start with, you could not lie about what the results were.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Your response focuses entirely on the people involved, rather than the substance of the concerns raised by one party and upheld by 6 others. I don't care if 1 of the 7 parties regularly drives busloads of orphans off a cliff, if the concerns have merit, they must be addressed. The job of the director is to capitulate to truth, no matter who voices it.

Any personal insults one of the parties lobs at others can be addressed separately from the concerns. An official must perform their duties without bias, even concerning somebody who thinks them the worst person in the world, and makes it known.

tl;dr: sometimes the rude, loud, angry constituent at the town hall meeting is right

[ImPostingOnHN]

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I see one group of people shining it and another shading the first group.

Someone who wants to be seen as acting in good faith (and cryptography standards folks should want this), should be addressing the substance of what he said.

Consensus doesn't mean "majority rule", it requires good-faith resolutions (read: not merely responses like 'nuh-uh') to the voiced concerns.