The cr.yp.to blog
2025.11.23: NSA and IETF, part 3: Dodging the issues at hand. #pqcrypto #hybrids #nsa #ietf #dodging
Normal practice in deploying post-quantum cryptography is to deploy ECC+PQ. IETF's TLS working group is standardizing ECC+PQ. But IETF management is also non-consensually ramming a particular NSA-driven document through the IETF process, a "non-hybrid" document that adds just PQ as another TLS option.
Don't worry: we're standardizing cars with seatbelts. Also, recognizing generous funding from the National Morgue Association, we're going to standardize cars without seatbelts as another option, ignoring the safety objections. That's okay, right?
Last month I posted part 1 of this story. Today's part 2 highlighted the corruption. This blog post, part 3, highlights the dodging in a particular posting at the beginning of this month by an IETF "security area director". Part 4 will give an example of how dissent on this topic has been censored.
Consensus means whatever the people in power want to do. Recall from my previous blog post that "adoption" of a document is a preliminary step before an IETF "working group" works on, and decides whether to standardize, the document. In April 2025, the chairs of the IETF TLS WG called for "adoption" of this NSA-driven document. During the call period, 20 people expressed unequivocal support for adoption, 2 people expressed conditional support for adoption, and 7 people expressed unequivocal opposition to adoption. (Details for verification.)
The chairs claimed that "we have consensus to adopt this draft". I promptly asked for explanation.
Before the chairs could even reply, an "area director" interrupted, claiming, inter alia, the following: "There is clearly consensus based on the 67 responses to the adoption call. ... The vast majority was in favour of adoption ... There were a few dissenting opinions".
After these lies by the "area director" were debunked, the chairs said that they had declared consensus "because there is clearly sufficient interest to work on this draft" specifically "enough people willing to review the draft".
I can understand not everybody being familiar with the specific definition of "consensus" that antitrust law requires standards-development organizations to follow. But it's astonishing to see chairs substituting a consensus-evaluation procedure that simply ignores objections.
... continue reading