On Thu, 4 Sep 2025, D. J. Bernstein wrote: [ TL;DR I am in the process of handling an appeal on this decision, and I should have communicated this better to the TLS WG. My appeal decision will be published in the next couple of days ]
[ Note I removed your direct email address as it is not a reachable email address due to legaleze requirements on an autoresponder I cannot respond to. This is not a wildcard for using the TLS list as your personal email archive, and if messages in this thread become unrelated to the TLS WG, you will be requested to take those issues elsewhere. ]
To the Security ADs, cc'ing [email protected]: I am writing to you to invoke the "may bring it to the attention of the Area Director(s)" provision of RFC 2026 regarding the matter below.
Thank you for your message. The Security Area Directors, like all other Area Directors, have divided the workload of WGs amongst us, and I will be the AD responding to this request.
For transparency, please carry out all discussion of this matter on the relevant public mailing list ([email protected]), including, but not limited to, any discussions of this matter among IESG members, IAB members, agents of IETF Administration LLC, etc.
Please stop trying to dictate how people should behave. As a participant, it is not your job to set the rules and it is inappropriate for this mailing list as well as misleading and repetitive. Continued usage of off-topic, misleading content can be a reason for the WG Chairs and AD to take further action. Like all other WGs, we use RFC 2418 "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures" and you should refrain from attempting to modify that process, it is a violation of our Code of Conduct and can be a reason for getting your postings moderated. Let me remind you that you have already received a public warning regarding this as per BCP94: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_15N-0uipLJAIBEPlEq_7F2NB2Q/
As background, the TLS WG chairs sent email dated 14 Jul 2025 18:05:33 -0400 announcing a second "WG adoption call for draft-reddy-tls-slhdsa".
Reference: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/R8jw8Gh3_BGCpXwwFAyrs0YPfS4/
Three weeks after the end of the specified call period, the chairs issued a statement making completely unclear what they are claiming the results of the call are.
Reference: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YQ3ju1KXzwrT1T2U4ny8YK-ZmU0/ I am not sure what is unclear? They said: While we had more people respond to this call than the previous one, however, the ratio of the pros and cons was similar making the consensus rough.
The chairs answered an initial round of questions by saying "The draft is adopted as a working group item".
Reference: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/wHRay5CS46_9k36Q1odYVrKvFxo/
I asked a simple yes/no question as to whether the chairs are claiming that this has WG consensus; that was two weeks ago, and there still has been no reply.
On the same day as the clarification statement, the WG Chairs and I as AD received an Appeal. The WG Chairs were waiting on my appeal decision before any further correspondence. Unfortunately, I have been excessively busy with other AD and IESG work, such as working on responding along with the rest of the IESG to 40 pages of other IESG appeals filed in the recent weeks. Reference: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/
The chairs also said "The draft is 'parked' meaning there will not be a working group last call until the conditions have been met". I asked whether the chairs are claiming that this second statement has WG consensus.
The WG Chairs are under no obligation to respond to every question asked, and they may exercise discretion as to how often and how soon they respond to inquiries received from specific participants. Furthermore: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2418#section-6.1 The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the conduct of WG business. Which I interpret to mean that your question on whether the statement has WG consensus is not relevant. It is obvious to me that the WG Chairs tried to accomodate as many participants as possible, which is ultimately the goal of the consensus process. My formal answer to the appeal should clarify this further shortly, so no need to further litigate to this statement. It is merely informational.
That was also two weeks ago, and there was again no reply.
The WG Chairs were waiting on me as AD due to us receiving an appeal. That is to say, it was not their fault but mine.
The lack of clarity is procedurally unacceptable.
I agree. I should have sent a message before to clarify this. I apologise to the TLS WG for my slow process regarding this issue. I will share the appeal outcome with the TLS WG over the next couple of days.
Also, beyond clearly declaring the results of the call, the chairs have to make clear how they arrived at this declaration.
We seem to disagree about what "make clear" constitutes. RFC 2418 gives the WG Chairs "wide discretion in the conduct of WG business". I believe the messages they sent out were clear enough, but we do not need to further argue about that as the received appeal is making this specific discussion overtaken by events and you can re-evaluate the updated situation in a few days.
BCP 9 requires the chairs to "maintain a publicly accessible record of" their work, including "complete and accurate minutes" of their meetings, and including copies of "all written contributions"; where are the records? The chairs ignored this question.
You keep grossly misrepresenting what this statement means, so my response is similar to the boilerplate used earlier in your message. Paul _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
