Hi Ted, I have not disputed that my technical position is in the minority. I said so explicitly. [1] RFC 7282 [2] governs rough consensus on technical decisions, and I accept its implications in that domain.
What I have raised separately is a concern about process, specifically, chair conduct during this WGLC. That is a distinct matter, and one that rough consensus doctrine does not and was not designed to govern. Using it to address the second question by way of the first is an understandable shortcut, but not quite right. I also don’t know if your “denial of service” characterization really captures the full context here. I worry that we toss this term around as a thought-terminating cliché these days. Anything that takes issue with a process that some would like concluded, wrapped and stored is suddenly “denial of service”. “Denial of service” often presupposes bad faith or dilatory intent. I have raised a specific technical objection and a specific process concern, both in good faith. I would ask that the framing be reconsidered. I take the point about mailing list friction seriously. I have not, and will not press the technical matter further on-list, as I’ve already indicated in [1]. I think it’s important to focus on what I’m actually raising here and not bundling me with matters raised by others who happen to overlap with me on some positions, or their understood intent. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/O5tgVST_oEtwC5-PvoD-xaMEKRk/ [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 Nadim Kobeissi Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software > On 23 Jul 2026, at 12:34 PM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Nadim, fundamentally, you can always read documents to support your own > perspective. That's human nature. > > What you are seeing in this discussion is that a massive majority of working > group participants believe that your perspective is mistaken. You can of > course continue to insist that it is not, and this is your right and > privilege. But what you are hearing is that we, the working group, would > really like to stop being bombarded by repeated messages where someone who is > in the rough (go read RFC7282 if you don't know what that phrase means) > insists on re-litigating a point that's been resolved to the satisfaction of > the working group. > > This amounts to a denial-of-service attack, and works very much against the > open process in the iETF. Most of us do IETF standards work in support of a > day job where we are paid to write software or maintain systems, not to > endlessly debate standards. So this behavior makes it too expensive for us to > participate. > > This is really important, Nadim. I've done both sorts of jobs—I had a job for > a long time that paid me to do standards work as my main task, and I could > spend as much time as I wanted discussing what I thought. Now I have a job > where I'm building things. I think the quality of my work has improved a lot > as a result of this, but at the expense of my ability to participate when > working groups turn toxic as a result of these denial-of-service attacks. The > IETF needs practitioners, not just standards wonks. No criticism to either > group: this is a pracitcal matter. > > So when you read that document, please, keep this in mind. There is a HUGE > cost to the kind of discourse that we've had on the TLS mailing list the past > month. You seem to be a considerate person, and I think you're doing your > best, but there's a reason the consensus on "draconian" moderation came out > the way it did, and you really should pay attention and not just assume we're > all jerks who are out to suppress your opinions. >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
