Andrew, On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 12:30, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip> > 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." > > I want to be very clear that I am confident this goes both ways. To wit, I want to be understood that I was trying to say that "when [someone like DJB applies the other kind of friction seperate from technical debate] during a time limited community event such as Last Call," I believe it "represents a bug in the process" that could be misused. That is to say, I think that perhaps DJB could have included a persistent footnote stating that he has an active dispute/appeal/whatever with the IETF/IESG/IAB/LLC/ISOC and so on. Perhaps he could further clarify that his footnotes are not intended to cast doubt on the ability of other participants' ability to safely engage with threads where his previous input to the mailing may have been misquoted or reshaped (by whomever). By insisting on engaging with the highest possible friction—for example, by incorporating both his technical judgement alongside his procedural misgivings as presented in his message—during an event like Last Call creates a genuine technical, procedural and social dilemma. For example, your appeal. On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 12:53, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > IV. A footnote does not constitute disruption > If you are curious if this uncertainty really truly manifests, an example is present here [0] where the participant goes out of their way to confirm with DJB that quoting him is permissible, stating in part: "Quoting below as per your permission in [1]." As I see it, the presence of that disclaimer appears unique to DJB's technical input, and represents a genuine, non-renewable (read: "disruptive") investment of time. Time spent navigating procedural hurdles instead of focusing on the technical point. Best regards, Nathanael [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/LvjJJGQIUER1k__G0Gorak8YfJQ/ [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/oKrCjFfDUYoePOVSyWQ-URQU9Fk/ On Fri, 3 Jul 2026 at 12:30, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> wrote: > >> *From: *Nathanael Ritz <[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]
