Post #1249836

2026-04-05 20:13 UTC

@djb I don't think you're making the right argument there. There's simply no consensus for this document. There's a lot of cases where that's a hard determination to make; a pretty even split is not one of them. If anything, showing that it is in fact even (and not biased by random drive-bys or sockpuppets), and then insisting on the conclusion of no consensus would be the way to go. They can publish on the individual stream. The bar to cipher suite numbers is only "specification required" ffs.

Replies (2)

@equinox@chaos.social 2026-04-05 20:15

@djb this reminds me of the Star Trek episode with Data and the Zakdorn [https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Peak_Performance_(episode)] where Data keep losing until he switches his strategy to a draw instead of a win. Only at that point does he not immediately lose, leaving the Zakdorn to quit in frustration. Play for the draw. [P.S.: I have zero fucking clue about cryptography, quantum or regular.]

Open ##1249837
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to 2026-04-05 20:56

@equinox Consensus is required, certainly, but it's also impressive to see this spec not even managing to achieve majority support. A year ago the "security area director" was putting up postings claiming support for this spec from (1) everybody but me, (2) the "vast majority", and (3) the "overwhelming majority". The chairs today aren't claiming consensus but still haven't admitted how much opposition there is; they're acting as if there were merely some editorial objections.

Open ##1249838