Thank you for your input, Andrew. I would like to contribute some minor corrections, and a little of my own perspective.
> AD Wouters refused for months to address the substance of Dr. Bernstein's > original complaint on this same dispute, was identified as having instigated > the prior moderation actions, and was required to recuse himself when the > matter reached the IESG in October 2025. Both ADs are compromised. The > situation is functionally equivalent to one where the responsible AD "cannot > be determined or is not assigned" under RFC 9945 Section 4.1. Wouters is not an AD. As mentioned in another email, you can find the list of ADs on https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/sec/about/ > I. Background > > Dr. Bernstein is one of the most prominent technical cryptographers, and > also, a critic of draft-ietf-tls-mlkem, which proposes deploying PQ > cryptography without the protection of existing ECC encryption. > AD Cooley clarified on-list that the moderation is "not for the technical > content, but for the footnote which contains a derivative rights statement," > referring to a copyright notice Dr. Bernstein appends to his emails. To the best of my knowledge, ECC encryption is not, and has never been used by TLS in any capacity (although I welcome corrections!) As far as I’m aware elliptic curves have only ever been used for key exchange. Furthermore, draft-ietf-tls-mlkem does not propose deploying ML-KEM without ECDH, it only specifies the way to do so. An intention to propose non-hybrid PQC would be one which changes the Recommended: N to a Recommended: Y in the IANA registry. > II. The cited authority is invalid > > The moderation notice cites "BCP9 / RFC3934 Section 2." This citation is > wrong in two independent respects. BCP 9 is RFC 2026, not RFC 3934. These are > separate documents. Additionally, RFC 3934 was obsoleted by RFC 9945 upon > publication in February 2026. When this was raised on-list, AD Cooley > asserted that RFC 9945 "is not in effect" yet. The RFC Editor records > contradict this. The moderation was imposed under authority that no longer > exists. BCP 9 does inarguably exist in RFC 3934: "Like all other WG chair decisions, any suspension of posting privileges is subject to appeal, as described in RFC 2026 [RFC2026].”. In fact, the RFC2026 reference is precisely and specifically to BCP 9. > III. The responsible AD has already been found to have misrepresented the > record by the IAB > > In the same June 30 IAB response, the IAB noted that the responsible AD's > "initial characterization of the adoption call did not accurately describe > the record." This is a formal finding by the IAB that the AD misrepresented > facts in a prior proceeding involving the same parties, the same document, > and the same underlying dispute. It establishes a documented pattern of > unreliable process administration on this matter. It is worth also including the end of that sentence, "a more precise account was provided subsequently." > IV. A footnote does not constitute disruption > > The derivative works notice appears at the bottom of Dr. Bernstein's emails, > after the substantive content. It prevents no one from reading or responding > to his technical arguments. Whether the notice conforms to IETF intellectual > property policy is a legitimate disagreement between Dr. Bernstein and the > IESG. Using that disagreement as grounds to silence him during a WG Last Call > is grossly disproportionate to the alleged disruption and raises serious > questions about whether the true target is his technical position rather than > his footnote. Whether it prevents one from reading or responding to his technical arguments is not relevant to the moderation decision you are contesting. > V. Selective enforcement > > During this same WG Last Call, other participants accused Dr. Bernstein of > orchestrating a coordinated campaign. No warning or moderation followed. > Participants who are for solo ML-KEM sling disrespect. Participants who are > for solo ML-KEM have accused others of criminal behavior on the TLS list > without consequence. NSA employees posted to the list for the first and only > time to express support for the solo ML-KEM draft. No concern was raised > about coordination in that instance. By contrast, when participants arrived > through Dr. Bernstein's public call for involvement, which is expressly > permitted under IETF rules stating that "There is no membership in the IETF" > and "Anyone can participate," it was characterized as disruptive. > > This is precisely the pattern RFC 9945 Section 6 was written to prevent: "the > potential abuse of the moderation procedures by moderators, working group > chairs, and potentially others that could lead to censorship of legitimate > participation." No one has accused anyone of criminal behaviour, as far as I’m aware, although again I welcome corrections. Publishing a blog post urging action is not criminal, nor is highlighting such to the mailing list. Further, although not relevant to your appeal, I do want to clarify: those supporting the draft are not ‘for solo ML-KEM.’ The draft is to specify the method to do solo ML-KEM, in contrast to having unstandardised third-party implementations. A vote ‘for solo ML-KEM’ would be with respect to the IANA registry, not with respect to a specification for how to do it. I believe this has previously been made clear in the TLS WG with others referencing the many places solo ML-KEM has been implemented *without* a standard from from the TLS WG, which is a situation we likely want to avoid insofar as possible. > VI. Minority positions are protected under IETF policy > > RFC 9945 Section 1.2 states that "viewpoints outside the rough consensus are > not in and of themselves disruptive." Dr. Bernstein holds a substantive > technical position shared by, what the WG chairs and ADs consider to be, a > minority of TLS WG participants. Fourteen participants filed objections > during the, separate, ML-DSA WG Last Call for example. Suppressing this > position through moderation, regardless of the procedural pretext, violates > the policy the IETF adopted four months ago. My understanding, and from what I gather, yours (as described in your background section and referenced in section IV), is that the footnote was the reason for moderation. The ML-DSA Last Call is both a separate document and not (afaik) referenced in his footnote so it is not likely to be relevant to your appeal. Cheers, Kevin
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
