Post #3584964

2026-07-04 16:47 UTC

@mikalai@privacysafe.social @pluralistic@mamot.fr @eff@mastodon.social Please see https://www.ietf.org/process/process/ There is no voting, no re-voting and there is a difference between adoption calls and working group last call, and it’s normal to have revisions that address concerns and a new follow-up working group last call to confirm consensus. But instead of reading up on how the IETF works, sure you can also just make up a conspiracy theory. It is much easier and doesn’t require any time or effort on your part.

Replies (2)

@mikalai@privacysafe.social 2026-07-04 16:58

@letoams@defcon.social Well, whatever you call that process. Not a lawyer, but I see clauses in laws that amount to "spirit of action" in order to overcome any possible procedural finger pointing. May be officially head of WG is BDFL style, and all those counts are for your consultation only. Why should any of us care? We must care about result of your process! And this is why you hear all of this, as it isn't clear why proven encryption should be dropped. @pluralistic@mamot.fr @eff@mastodon.social

Open ##3584957
@mikalai@privacysafe.social 2026-07-04 17:23

@letoams@defcon.social I just realised that result of the process, however it is structured, will influence my bank's connection first. Even if Signal ignores IETF in this case, bank's contractors will blindly follow whatever you guys do. So, you will be morally responsible for removing conservatively added working crypto. It isn't just about big targets. It is also about security of my and, I suspect, your money. So, don't hide behind procedures. Please. @pluralistic@mamot.fr @eff@mastodon.social

Open ##3586918