Considering the ratio of the “objectors” to the “supporters”, the consensus seems to be there.
Of course, some appear to be (much) more vocal than the others, and more persistent/relentless too. But the consensus isn’t measured by loudness, nor by how many times a party chooses to repeat their (same) argument. — Regards, Uri > On May 5, 2026, at 16:19, Jacob Appelbaum <[email protected]> wrote: > > !-------------------------------------------------------------------| > This Message Is From an External Sender > This message came from outside the Laboratory. > |-------------------------------------------------------------------! > > Hello Paul, > >> On 5/5/26 20:14, Paul Wouters wrote: >>> On Tue, 5 May 2026, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: >>> Hello Paul, >> The below is fairly long message where you reason that the onus is on the >> IETF rejecting its core principles in favour of a single individual not >> playing along with the core principles, where in fact the least friction >> solution is not for the IETF to ignore or change it rules, but for that >> participant to simply remove its bogus Derivative Clause. > > No, that is not my argument, and it is not an accurate characterization > of what I wrote. > > Reducing the objections of around a dozen people to one individual is > not a reasonable characterization of the situation. And given that this > kind of moderation is itself relatively new, I do not think "core > principles" can simply be assumed in the way you suggest here. > > When moderation affects a complaint about moderation during a live > consensus process, the burden is on the process owners to act promptly > and transparently, regardless of the separate dispute you want to > foreground. This is thankless work, to be sure, but declaring > "consensus" without a visible explanation for the unresolved objections > and requests for clarification is not persuasive. > >> You are blaming the messenger and the receiver, instead of talking to the >> entity causing what you deem to be a major issue. > > I am not blaming the messenger. Part of my objection is that there was > no message and there has been very little transparency about the > handling of the matter. > >> Have you talked to them on why their derivative clause is more important >> than your grave concerns that this author's discussion points are not being >> heard by the TLS WG? > > They were directly CC'd on the email in question. Have I missed a reply? > > The derivative-rights dispute and the moderation issue are distinct. > Both are also distinct from the consensus call itself. > > Even if one assumes the disclaimer language is improper, it does not > follow that a complaint about moderation, or a complaint about > consensus, should simply disappear into moderation without any > acknowledgement during WGLC. > > Stephen requested clarification about consensus and explicitly > questioned whether rough consensus had been reached. Do you see that > reasonable request being addressed? I do not. Did I miss a message? If > so, I would welcome a link to the email that I missed. > >> I have nothing further to say on this (somewhat off)topic, so I'll step back >> again to prevent further noise from distracting from the on-topi discussions. >> Paul > > Understood. Thank you for taking the time to reply to emails that you deem as > fairly long. > > The process point remains: the moderation complaint was not > promptly acknowledged or posted, and there was no visible response to > the consensus concerns that were raised, including about the > consensus call itself. > > In terms of IETF core principles, rough consensus is among the most > important. I do not see evidence here that the underlying rough > consensus concerns have been resolved or that the principle is being > honored here. I see unresolved objections, requests for clarification, > and a continued shift away from the process and results questions raised > by roughly a dozen people. > > Kind regards, > Jacob Appelbaum > >>> 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]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
