On Mon, 4 May 2026, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
I am even more surprised that your complaint hasn't been acknowledged, nor has it been released from list moderation in the ~five days since you sent it.
Based on your quoted message, it seems djb once again added this erroneous and misleading disclaimer to the message. So I am surprised you are surprised. Also, note that you violated DJB's "no derivative" clause when your mail client modified djb's content when republishing it. You should also not be the delivery vehicle for djb's moderated messages by quoting his message verbatim in a list reply as this also contains djb's bogus "no derivative" clauses that violate RFC5387. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5387/ For an enourmously detailed response of the IETF community to djb, see: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/232 https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/220 https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/129 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/229 https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/228 https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/140
Moderating your complaint seems plainly and directly related to your views on hybrid cryptography, and to the views of others who were ignored in the consensus call.
It does not. Simply read the above links for context instead of jumping to conclusions of ill intend of the TLS WG. I'm not responding to the rest of the message, as it is responding to quoted text from a message that contains bogus and misleading derivative rights statements. If that message is posted by the original author without such restrictions, it can be discussed on its merit. Paul _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
