Hi, [no sec-ads],
Hasn't he done it right this time, no matter the merits of the rest of the appeal? https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/ It's in Section 6.c: "If a Contributor chooses to limit the right to make modifications and derivative works of an IETF Contribution [...]" thanks, Rob On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 3:32 PM Paul Wouters <paul= [email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025, D. J. Bernstein wrote: > > [ message not quoted because of your included IETF policy modifier > boilerplate ] > > Dan, > > You keep addressing your message to both Security ADs, and we already > explained before [1][2], and as confirmed by the IESG to be within the > rights of the Security ADs [3], that as Responsible AD, only I will be > handling this complaint. > > Your email dated Oct 13 2025 still contains a disclaimer that attempts > to modify the IETF Standards Process. I addressed this in in [1] on June > 12th: > > mails should not include language that violates BCP 9 RFC 2026 > Section > 10.2 or BCP 25 RFC3978 Section 3.2 and should not include > processing > instructions that are not backed by our Internet Standards Process. > > and again in [2] on October 7 2025: > > Additionally this time, both the email content and the remotely > hosted PDF contain language indicating you are not accepting > rights and obligations under the IETF Standards Process BCP9. As > with all other activities in the IETF, the policies the Note > Well reminds us of, also apply to the IETF conflict resolution > and appeals processes. > > Thus, it cannot come as surprise that I still cannot process your email as > a > valid Appeal Contribution under RFC 2026. > > I also already explained why your current process modifier boilerplate > cannot be valid in any stretch of interpretationi [4]. > > > As per IESG Appeal response [5], you have until 2025-10-15 to resubmit > your message in a form that can be processed as a complaint/appeal > under BCP9. > > Paul Wouters > Security Area Director > > > PS: Note that this also applies to your subsequent message that you sent > out > with Message-ID: <[email protected]>. > This message I am responding to was held for moderator approval due to > its size. The mailman3 software has sent you a notify message warning > you of this, but I pressume the IETF daemon software did not agree to > the legal terms set forth by your autoresponder "QRsecrtary", and as > such you did not see that message. Again, please resolve your email > connectivity problems to avoid further undue noise on the TLS WG list. > > > > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/eSW2K3Ql1jzMcN-Aj1EYCGOLu9o/ > [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/IqlxRU19yiL0rkaH5QwD9ARF7F4/ > [3] > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-the-conflict-resolution-and-appeals-processes/ > [4] > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CgC9g_y1y5f3JQeMz_y9u2zMBxk/ > [5] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/146 > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
