Hi, trimming the list to just tls.....
RFC 3934 is the source I used here (and the chairs use for warnings and moderation generally). My preferred practice/guidance is to give a private warning first, on the second occurrence give a public warning, and upon continued occurrences moderate (where this means messages are held in a queue and reviewed before releasing them to the list). In this particular case, I issued the public warning first, which I followed up with a private warning. The reason I did this vice the chairs was because of the number of mailing lists involved (it went to last-call and the iesg in addition to tls). I do encourage people on this list to act with respect and courtesy. Please see Sean's monthly messages if there is doubt about what this means. Deb Cooley Sec AD On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 4:53 AM Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > I fully agree with all of your three individual points. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > > On 22 May 2026, at 10:49 AM, John Mattsson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi, > > I think a warning should almost always be the first action, and I think a > warning was appropriate in this case. I think the IETF should be very > restrictive with bans, and moderation is only appropriate after continued > misbehavior. > > In most legal systems, a key distinction is whether a person acted with > intent (planning/premeditation) or in a state of affect (an emotional, > impulsive reaction). I think IETF mail moderation should use the same > principle. > > Finally, I support the decision not to remove the emails. Transparency is > essential, maintaining a full public record allows the community to judge > the conduct of all parties for themselves. > > Cheers, > John Preuß Mattsson > > *From: *Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]> > *Date: *Friday, 22 May 2026 at 09:43 > *To: *Deb Cooley <[email protected]> > *Cc: *[email protected] <[email protected]>; The IESG < > [email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; TLS List < > [email protected]>; stndrds-inacio stndrds-inacio < > [email protected]> > *Subject: *[TLS] Re: Warning and removal of message > > If that message only gets a warning, I can scarcely imagine what kind of > thing one must send to the TLS mailing list to actually receive a ban. > > Except, of course, people have had their posts moderated for 30 days for > much less. > > Nadim Kobeissi > Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > > On 19 May 2026, at 4:37 PM, Deb Cooley <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is an official warning to Soatok Dreamseeker per RFC 3934 Section 2 > [0], regarding the message sent in reply to > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YuPYdAeSRJkSkfPZsVxGtbLwAb4/ (also > sent to the last-call list). The content of this message is disruptive to > both the TLS working group progress and IETF Last Call progress. > > In addition to this warning, the message will be hidden from the mail > archive for TLS and last-call. > > Deb Cooley > Security AD > > [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.html#section-2 > _______________________________________________ > 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]
