Paul Wouters writes: > what the issues were "The issues"? How about admitting that IESG hasn't supported your attempts to keep complaints off-list, and has explicitly rejected your ad-hoc excuse that I'm using a filtered email address?
What makes AD-IESG discrepancies particularly remarkable here is that IESG doesn't meet the basic requirement of having appeals handled by neutral arbiters. For example, IESG has two members from the company that showed up on the TLS list saying "that's what they're willing to buy. Hence, [this company] will implement it" regarding the non-hybrid proposal at issue. That company obviously isn't alone: NSA wrote "Our interactions with vendors suggests that this won't be a problem". IESG's entire rationale for saying that my complaint wasn't "valid" is one sliver from your list of excuses: it boils down to the fact that at that point I wasn't using the IETF-approved text for opting out of IETF's copyright grab. This isn't my fault---it's not as if IETF warns participants about the copyright grab in the first place, never mind the buried opt-out text. > I still have not received an appeal I can process 4 months later, A dispute has been brought to your attention. RFC 2026 says that you "shall attempt to resolve the dispute". It gives neither you nor IESG authority to make exceptions to this. You are, via intermediaries, an appointee and agent of IETF LLC, a corporation that claims that IETF procedural rules are "rigorously followed"; how about following them? > but this entire waiting time rests solely with the appellant. Checking the list archives: I filed a complaint on 5 Jun 2025 18:51:36 -0000. You sent email 12 Jun 2025 15:58:44 -0400. I sent email 14 Jun 2025 01:15:38 -0000. You didn't respond. RFC 2026 allows appeals to IESG only when "the disagreement cannot be resolved by the Area Director(s)". It doesn't make exceptions for non-responsive ADs. On the other hand, it also has a two-month deadline. So I escalated to IESG on 13 Aug 2025 03:25:23 -0000, describing the AD action as what lawyers call "constructive denial": it's delaying in a way that can and should be construed as denial. IESG didn't respond until 01 Oct 2025 09:35:27 -0700---and still didn't address the actual content of the complaint. IESG rejected one of your excuses for not addressing the complaint, but endorsed another, falsely claiming that one paragraph in my complaint meant that my complaint wasn't a "Contribution" and thus couldn't be processed. I filed a complaint on 6 Oct 2025 12:04:38 -0000 with various revisions, in particular removing that paragraph. You sent email 7 Oct 2025 11:31:16 -0400. I sent email 7 Oct 2025 18:31:49 -0000. You sent email 7 Oct 2025 21:17:43 -0400. I sent email 9 Oct 2025 17:15:19 -0000. You haven't responded to that, although in the meantime you've been sending separate messages repeating your earlier claims. In total, that's four months (so far) of me waiting for IETF management to respond, plus a week the other way around. > re-export his latex file into plaintext [ ... ] > that should not have taken more than a few minutes This is exactly the sort of information mismanagement that led to IESG posting a mangled version of an earlier complaint and misattributing the results to me. IESG didn't fix the most obvious mangling until I filed a DMCA takedown request. Sloppy procedures simply aren't acceptable for people who care about accuracy. PDF robustly and legibly communicates the content of this complaint, including standard reading features such as indentation and boldface that are _not_ robustly communicated by email. As I commented in an earlier message, PDFs are so widely used for professional communication that an anti-PDF narrative comes across as bizarre. Meanwhile I notice that you still haven't answered the following 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?" ---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]
