Hello Paul,
On 5/5/26 16:35, Paul Wouters wrote:
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.
It is a choice of when and how to enforce rules, and that enforcement
can fairly be perceived as having a problematic appearance.
Also, note that you violated DJB's "no derivative" clause when your
mail client modified djb's content when republishing it.
My legal counsel disagrees; but thank you for your perspective and your
concern.
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.
This is beside the point.
My point was not to endorse any disclaimer language. My point was that a
complaint about moderation of dissent in an active WGLC appears to have
been left unacknowledged and unposted for days. That is a process issue
regardless of anyone's views on derivative-rights language.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5387/
I assume you meant RFC 5378, not RFC 5387 ("Problem and Applicability
Statement for Better-Than-Nothing Security (BTNS) RFC 5387").
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
Those older disputes do not answer the narrower point I raised here.
Note that there isn't unanimity that the IESG has primacy over BCPs,
RFCs, etc., as Simon and Rob have discussed as recently as today on the
ietf list:
- https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/1hzXylWOjyrwErIKO67uE2P5cno/
Moderating a complaint about list moderation during and directly after a
live consensus process remains a serious matter.
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.
Intent is not the issue; results are the point. Intent is often hard to
establish, but the result here is directly observable.
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
That is your choice, and it does not resolve the underlying concern.
Consensus was not reached, and delaying the message further suppresses
dissent while again placing the burden on those who raised unresolved
concerns.
If the TLS WG wants to show that moderation here was unrelated to the
substance of the complaint, the straightforward way to do that is to
acknowledge the complaint and release it, or clearly explain the basis
for not doing so.
Kind regards,
Jacob Appelbaum
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
