On Fri, Sep 12, 2025 at 2:51 AM D. J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Wouters writes (on the 5th):
> > I am in the process of handling an appeal on this decision,
>
> I've now read through your message on the 9th regarding email "from Eric
> Rescorla, Richard Barnes and Martin Thomson" and "from Tim Hollebeek".
>
> Those messages still seem to be secret,
Our message can be found in Paul's response under the heading of
"received appeal text".
-Ekr
> but you say that the second
> message called the outcome here a "process violation". You briefly
> address this by claiming that the chairs "handled this case properly"
> and by retroactively characterizing "adopt and park" in two ways that
> I'll quote below.
>
> Whether or not that's responsive to the second message (the public can't
> evaluate this as long as that message stays secret), it's definitely not
> responsive to my complaint about the lack of clarity.
>
> Certainly there's a procedural problem if the chairs are announcing that
> the decision resulting from the call is "The WG has consensus on X" when
> the call was for something different from X. But my complaint here is
> more fundamental: the chairs didn't issue a clear statement of the call
> result in the first place.
>
> Did the chairs claim "rough consensus" on adoption? Did they claim
> "rough consensus" to "park" the document until there is "sufficient
> external interest to publish it such as usage in another standard or a
> groundswell of significant implementations"? Both? One can't tell.
>
> Something is seriously wrong when an AD's characterizations of what the
> chairs did can vary between the following:
>
> * The chairs were presenting "adopt and park" as (in the AD's words)
> an "alternative outcome that did seem to carry rough consensus".
>
> * "Adopt and park" was a mere _proposal_ (AD's words: "the proposed
> 'adopt and park' solution) from the chairs in the absence of
> "rough consensus".
>
> Leaving the status unclear is confusing, error-prone, and abuse-prone.
> It obscures what the people in power are actually doing, and improperly
> shifts burdens away from those people to other parties who might object.
> Consider, for example, how any of the following radically different
> types of objections _could_ be on point or _could_ be a waste of time to
> state in detail, depending on how the chair statements are interpreted:
>
> * Objecting that the chairs were marking a document as adopted
> while ignoring the RFC 2418 rule that "Working groups make
> decisions through a 'rough consensus' process".
>
> * Objecting that the chairs were misevaluating consensus.
>
> * Objecting that the chairs were making up obstacles such as asking
> for a "groundswell of significant implementations" rather than
> sticking to RFC 7127 ("Usually, neither implementation nor
> operational experience is required for the designation of a
> specification as a Proposed Standard. However, such experience is
> highly desirable and will usually represent a strong argument in
> favor of a Proposed Standard designation").
>
> It seems that the second type of objection was filed, leading to the AD
> reversing adoption. Maybe this won't be appealed; maybe it'll survive
> appeal; but in any case it does nothing to acknowledge or correct the
> problem of WG chairs not feeling obliged to state decisions clearly.
>
> > I removed your direct email address
>
> Thanks! "Mail-Followup-To: [email protected]" in my message was already a
> request for exactly that (I'm a list subscriber), but I realize that not
> all MUAs handle Mail-Followup-To automatically.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Writing "For transparency, please ..." is not dictating anything (even
> when there are external constraints on point). It's simply a request, in
> this case a request for transparency.
>
> > I am not sure what is unclear?
>
> As I said, the chairs didn't clearly state the call results. Your quote
> of the vote assessment ("the ratio of the pros and cons was similar
> making the consensus rough") begs the question: consensus on _what_?
>
> > The WG Chairs are under no obligation to respond to every question
> > asked
>
> The WG chairs were obliged to make the status clear in the first place,
> even without a question. Antitrust law obliges standards-development
> organizations to provide due process.
>
> [ chairs have "wide discretion" ]
> > Which I interpret to mean that your question on whether the statement
> > has WG consensus is not relevant.
>
> The "wide discretion" quote does not override the RFC 2418 rule that
> "Working groups make decisions through a 'rough consensus' process". It
> also doesn't override the requirements in antitrust law.
>
> > > 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.
>
> That doesn't justify ignoring clarification questions.
>
> > I believe the messages they sent out were clear enough
>
> Did they claim WG consensus to adopt the document? To "park" the
> document?
>
> > the received appeal is making this specific
> > discussion overtaken by events
>
> No, the topic is different. See above.
>
> > > 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
>
> How do you claim I'm misrepresenting it?
>
> Here's the start of Section 8 of RFC 2026: "Each of the organizations
> involved in the development and approval of Internet Standards shall
> publicly announce, and shall maintain a publicly accessible record of,
> every activity in which it engages, to the extent that the activity
> represents the prosecution of any part of the Internet Standards
> Process."
>
> The section continues with more specific requirements, such as "The
> formal record of an organization's standards-related activity shall
> include at least the following: ... complete and accurate minutes of
> meetings; the archives of Working Group electronic mail mailing lists;
> and all written contributions from participants that pertain to the
> organization's standards-related activity".
>
> This obliges IESG---you, for example, in your AD role---to publish the
> email messages that led to your instructing the WG chairs "to mark the
> document as Not Adopted".
>
> ---D. J. Bernstein
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
