I fully agree with everything you’ve said, Kathleen, both regarding Deb - who is fantastic and whose integrity can only be questioned by those who don’t know her or are acting in bad faith - and, more generally, regarding the repeated and increasing aggression seen on mailing lists (and elsewhere), which poisons the atmosphere and discourages participation. At times it seems to me that we are reaching the limits of the open society model that the IETF has adopted for itself, and I cannot see what measures we could take to restore the community to an acceptable state. The reality is that our model relies on everyone adhering to fundamental, albeit unwritten, meta-rules. Which breaks the moment a sufficient number of people fail to follow (or succeed to manipulate) them. cheers!
On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:54 PM Kathleen Moriarty <[email protected]> wrote: > > I’m disappointed to read that any defense for Deb is even felt necessary. Deb > over the years has been a helpful community member, contributing her > knowledge and expertise. In many cases, she was the one to stand up in an > IETF room to provide insights and was essentially the last word as she was > correct and level headed in each of those instances. > > I’ll have to go look at other threads as it seems the focus here is in the > wrong place. > > There has been a proliferation of attacks on individuals of late and it’s > counterproductive. I was on the receiving end as have many on sets of certain > lists. End result is that people are walking away from the IETF. My own > response was to pause my interactions on the mailing list and see that many > on one mailing list refrain from interacting with aggressors on the list. > It’s great to see everyone speaking up for Deb as she’s amazing and has > dedicated a number of years to serving the IETF and she is more than > qualified. > > I’d like to see some action where more could be done on the accuser. These > types of interactions are harmful to the community. And while there needs to > be a process for appeals, it seems there’s quite a bit of abuse lately. > > Best regards, > Kathleen > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 5:35 AM Dennis Jackson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have only interacted with Deb in the past couple of years, but those >> interactions have consistently demonstrated her integrity, fairness, and >> willingness to engage with challenging but important issues. >> >> The lazy ad-hominem attacks which have characterized recent discussions have >> no place in the IETF community and reflect far more poorly on those making >> them than on their intended targets. >> >> We owe our ADs, and Deb in particular, a great deal of gratitude for the >> time & energy they sacrifice to keep the IETF running. >> >> Best, >> Dennis >> >> On 15/07/2026 19:49, Deb Cooley wrote: >> >> >> For the record: I have been a Security Area Director since March 2024, that >> is 2 years and a couple of months. >> >> >> There have been previous inquiries into my ability to perform the duties of >> Security Area Director via the SSHM working group, and as part of >> complaints against the TLS chairs/AD. Those have been responded to by the >> IESG, the artifacts are below: >> >> >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/7KRZCX_bvZWUOG50HqDg_KVT77c/ >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/ (see artifacts 125/126, as >> well as 128/129) >> >> >> In addition to the artifacts above, I suggest that there might be people for >> whom I have worked with that could give an opinion on my work ethic and >> conduct for the last 2 plus years. >> >> >> The recourse for anyone who doesn’t believe this is a sufficient response is >> free to take a look at [RFC 8713, Section >> 7](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713/#section-7). >> >> >> Just a couple of minor points: >> >> 1. Retirement means that I don't work for NSA anymore. I earn no salary. >> >> 2. Retired does not mean the same as 'defected'. >> >> 3. My bio is accurate see here: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Deb%20Cooley. 37+ years of service in >> Cybersecurity which used to be Information Assurance, which used to be >> Information Security, which used to be COMSEC. >> >> 4. If you read RFC 9151, read all of it. Section 6 and 7 have MAY >> requirements which improve interoperability. Note that the draft was >> published in February 2021 when Adrian Farrel was the ISE. It was reviewed >> by a noteworthy set of reviewers including the late Jim Schaad. >> >> >> >> Deb Cooley >> Sec AD >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Thomas _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
