[ISP] Consensus and Transparency

[Ken Kubota]

In response to your message from this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p25hQE5OZ97uNbNfDUdPIZqJXZk/


> Perhaps because Dr. Bersteins concerns have been heard and found not to have consensus.  Honest people can disagree, and we all lose sometimes.  Not everything is a conspiracy.

4. Concerns: Both Professor Bernstein's concerns and mine remain unaddressed. "My objections were never addressed, including by the NSA, which responded to an earlier email from me via NSA employee William Layton: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vFu5iq8gPQFByj4L0hkCEAJUR9I/" [1]

5. Consensus: While the Working Group (WG) Chairs claimed consensus, it was evident that none existed. [1] Furthermore, none of the chairs holding academic positions approved the draft. [1] Professor Bernstein's concerns do not require a consensus among themselves; rather, the *draft* requires a consensus. The distinction is clear: Concerns must be addressed, not merely voted upon for their own sake.

6. Lack of Transparency: Although the WG Chairs explicitly stated that there was 70% approval, they have refused to provide the underlying evidence. [1] This contradicts the IETF's stated commitment to transparency.

I have never used the term "conspiracy."
"The term "conspiracy theory" is terminology from the field of psychological warfare.
Professor Mausfeld (Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Department of Psychology) once stated the famous quote: "Besonders beliebt sind 'Querfront' und 'Verschwörungstheorie'."
[…]
The trick is to associate any critique, which aims at the center of power, with something that is socially ostracized, in order to sabotage the criticism.
He calls such terms (e.g., "conspiracy theory") "denunciation terms," used to poison the debate.
If you need to resort to denunciation terms, you are actually supporting my position." [2]
In a fair debate, such terms should be avoided.

Are you expressing your personal view, or are you representing an official/semi-official position of Cisco as an employee [3]?

What is your proposal to resolve this conflict of interest?
"In December 2024, a Cisco employee wrote the following: "There are people whose cryptographic expertise I cannot doubt who say that pure ML-KEM is the right trade-off for them, and more importantly for my employer, that's what they're willing to buy. Hence, Cisco will implement it; I am essentially just asking for code points." Certainly "willing to buy" is a statement about funding, evidently from a source large enough to dictate Cisco actions, evidently from a source asking for non-hybrids, evidently from "people whose cryptographic expertise I cannot doubt"; if that source isn't NSA, who is it?" [4]

Kind regards,

Ken Kubota

____________________________________________________

Ken Kubota
https://doi.org/10.4444/100


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/OrvxKgjrEOMb95KAWoJYSilDxiY/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/Xx0yHcp2-z2A7oiELB-gxzgWs9k/

[3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Richard%20Barnes
"Richard Barnes is a Distinguished Engineer in the Collaboration CTO’s office at Cisco."
"rlb at ipv.sx"

[4] https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html



> Am 15.10.2026 um 17:54 schrieb Richard Barnes <rlb at ipv.sx>:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 11:01 AM Ken Kubota <ietf at kenkubota.de <mailto:ietf at kenkubota.de>> wrote:
>> 
>> 1. Why is former NSA lifetime employee Deb Cooley, now serving as Security Area Director, forcing through a document [1] that deflects Professor Bernstein's concerns [2]? 
> 
> Perhaps because Dr. Bersteins concerns have been heard and found not to have consensus.  Honest people can disagree, and we all lose sometimes.  Not everything is a conspiracy.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://listi.jpberlin.de/pipermail/internet-standards-policy/attachments/20261015/d576ef3f/attachment.htm>