Post #3575428
2026-07-02 18:41 UTC
@rsalz@ioc.exchange @letoams@defcon.social Did you complain when NSA overtly waved around money to pressure its "vendors" to support this draft? Did you complain when they suddenly called a new vote and flooded the room with votes, such as the vote from NSA's Mike Jenkins, his first-ever TLS list message?
Explicitly in response to that, I called for volunteers to speak up in the public interest. Suddenly you're issuing one-sided complaints and inventing new IETF rules to retroactively disenfranchise opponents.
Replies (1)
-
@letoams@defcon.social 2026-07-02 18:58
@djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to @rsalz@ioc.exchange with a broken premise, where you end up hardly matters. There is a safe most researched algorithm and a saver slightly more complicated hybrid. We get RFCs and the people or the market or the international governments decide if and what they want to accept. The IETF just facilitates both. It makes the slightly saver one recommended. This is where the story should end but Dan Quichotte is on a mission and can’t take he is in the rough of rough consensus that the IETF doesn’t want to forbid the safe option that some other orgs such as USG and 3GPP want to use.