Dear Jason, With all due respect, whether Dr. Bernstein is blameless is not the question before the IESG.
The question is whether a two (2) business day moderation delay is compatible with a time-limited vote that the IAB itself identified as the proper venue for his objections. Two days in internet time is an eternity. A response to a statement is orphaned and lost. Further, in a two week limited process, it's 14.3% of the entire window... per message! If you think the 50-100us added time of the X25519+HKDF is expensive, then let me tell you, two days is 172,800,000,000us. Nathanael put it well when he said, "friction is a feature the community relies on to help shape ..." but it is "a bug in the process ... when that friction is applied during a time limited community event such as Last Call." Best, Andrew > On Jul 3, 2026, at 9:07 AM, Nathanael Ritz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Below with [NR]: > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 9:14 AM Livingood, Jason <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> From: Nathanael Ritz <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > [AL] The real question before the IESG remains to be answered. The IAB >> > identified WGLC as the venue for Dr. Bernstein's technical objections, and >> > the chairs have restricted his ability to participate in that venue during >> > a vote with time limit. Whether the moderation is theoretically >> > permissible doesn't resolve whether it's compatible with the IAB's own >> > guidance. > > [NR] There’s just the one > marker here, so I want to mention that the “real > question” was written by Andrew Lee [AL], not myself. I’ve annotated this > email throughout for clarity. > > [NR] I believe Andrew’s appeal was brought forward in good faith, even if > misguided. I do think there is value in considering the impact of moderation > against a community time limit. > >> [JL] Dan’s approach is not blameless here; he understands the rules and >> norms IETF and by all appearances goes out of his way to not follow them. >> This results in things like being moderated, with the end result all the >> discussion tends to be about side issues of process and this and that, >> rather than the core technical issue he appears to want to address (pure vs >> hybrid). That diversion is a real shame and ends up being a waste of the >> IETF’s collective time. > > [NR] In my opinion, while he is not without his own reasons, DJB appears to > have taken the highest mode of friction possible to communicate his position. > While friction is a feature the community relies on to help shape > high-quality technical proposals, there’s a different kind of friction I see > here that is indeed seemingly entirely avoidable. In this other case, I think > that represents a bug in the process, especially when that friction is > applied during a time limited community event such as Last Call. > >> >> JL > > Cheers, > Nathanael > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
