Paul Wouters writes:
> As set out in the IESG Statement on the Conflict Resolution and Appeals
> Processes [1], appeals must be in a specific format and this appeal
> does not conform to that so it will not be processed.
Let me make sure I understand. You're refusing to obey RFC 2026's
"shall attempt to resolve the dispute" requirement, and your reason is
that I didn't use a "specific format" described in some IESG statement?
Did IESG announce its statement for IETF consideration? When? Where?
I certainly hadn't seen any such announcement when I prepared and filed
my complaint.
Maybe I missed an announcement, but if this is an _ex post facto_ rule
("now that you've done the work to file a revised complaint, we'll tell
you about new rules that we just posted, and retroactively throw your
complaint away on this basis, ha ha ha") then it's glaringly unethical.
Beyond timeline questions, why exactly do you believe that you and/or
the full IESG have authority to make exceptions to RFC 2026's "shall
attempt to resolve the dispute" requirement?
Also, you objected to my email normatively citing what you called "a
remotely hosted PDF", but then you didn't answer my followup question:
"For the record, is draft-ietf-tls-mlkem going to be banned because it
normatively cites FIPS 203, which is a remotely hosted PDF?"
I filed the actual content of my complaint more than four months ago.
With all due respect: It looks terrible for an AD and IESG to have been
making up retroactive, ad-hoc, selectively enforced excuses to not
address the content of the complaint.
---D. J. Bernstein
P.S. For readers bumping into this message who haven't seen the context:
Please see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html to understand
what's actually going on here.
===== NOTICES REGARDING IETF =====
It has come to my attention that IETF LLC believes that anyone filing a
comment, objection, or appeal is engaging in a copyright giveaway by
default, for example allowing IETF LLC to feed that material into AI
systems for manipulation. Specifically, IETF LLC views any such material
as a "Contribution", and believes that WG chairs, IESG, and other IETF
LLC agents are free to modify the material "unless explicitly disallowed
in the notices contained in a Contribution (in the form specified by the
Legend Instructions)". I am hereby explicitly disallowing such
modifications. Regarding "form", my understanding is that "Legend
Instructions" currently refers to the portion of
https://web.archive.org/web/20250306221446/https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf
saying that the situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow
modifications nor to allow publication as an RFC" must be expressed in
the following form: "This document may not be modified, and derivative
works of it may not be created, and it may not be published except as an
Internet-Draft". That expression hereby applies to this message.
I'm fine with redistribution of copies of this message. There are no
confidentiality restrictions on this message. The issue here is with
modifications, not with dissemination.
For other people concerned about what IETF LLC is doing: Feel free to
copy these notices into your own messages. If you're preparing text for
an IETF standard, it's legitimate for IETF LLC to insist on being
allowed to modify the text; but if you're just filing comments then
there's no reason for this.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
