Hi Rich,
I’m familiar with RFC2418 [1] and I believe that it actually validates
Fabiana’s queries. Quoting the sections you’re mentioning:
Section 3.4 (all-caps emphasis of parts that support Fabiana’s queries is added
by me):
Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As
much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be
made, and genuine consensus achieved; however, there are times when
even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to
agree. TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF OPENNESS AND FAIRNESS,
SUCH CONFLICTS MUST BE RESOLVED BY A PROCESS
OF OPEN REVIEW AND DISCUSSION.
Section 6.1 (all-caps emphasis of parts that support Fabiana’s queries is added
by me):
The Chair has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a working
group achieves forward progress and meets its milestones. THE
CHAIR IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE TO ENSURE THAT THE
WORKING GROUP OPERATES IN AN OPEN AND FAIR MANNER.
In either case, I would appreciate a substantive response directly from the
chairs to my original message about Fabiana’s queries [2].
[1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/O5tgVST_oEtwC5-PvoD-xaMEKRk/
Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software
> On 23 Jul 2026, at 12:05 PM, Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/23/26, 11:59 AM, "Nadim Kobeissi" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A few days later, we didn’t get any substantive response to Fabiana’s
> reasonable questions,
>
> Those questions were not not reasonable and rather showed an ignorance of how
> the IETF works, in particular RFC 2418 which describes how IETF working
> groups work. Look at Section 3 and 6.1
>
>
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
