I support the adoption of this draft. -sanketh
On Thu, Feb 19, 2026 at 7:32 AM David Adrian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > > I object to the proposal to publish draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-*. I have some > > specific comments and objections that I would be happy to explain, but > > procedurally it's clearly necessary as a baseline to resolve the problem > > of persistent list censorship by the WG chairs. I'll focus on that here. > > It seems far more useful to post your objections on this thread, than it > does to discuss your posting situation, given that this is a WGLC. > > Could you please post your specific comments and objections? > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2026 at 2:42 PM D. J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I object to the proposal to publish draft-ietf-tls-mlkem-*. I have some >> specific comments and objections that I would be happy to explain, but >> procedurally it's clearly necessary as a baseline to resolve the problem >> of persistent list censorship by the WG chairs. I'll focus on that here. >> >> This censorship is a continuing assault against IETF's promise of >> openness. The chairs had, for example, categorically barred me from >> sending any messages to the mailing list at the time of issuing their >> "second Working Group Last Call", a procedure with a short time limit. >> >> The censorship was instigated by Paul Wouters. As context, the chairs >> had issued a false claim of "consensus" to adopt the mlkem document, >> despite seven TLS WG participants having raised unresolved objections to >> adoption. I followed the official procedures to object to this claim of >> consensus. This reached Wouters, who then posted a long-list of ad-hoc >> excuses for ignoring dissent. I had, for example, used URLs, and he >> claimed that URLs are bad; I had used a PDF, and he claimed that PDFs >> are bad; I have spam protection, and he claimed that spam protection is >> bad; et cetera. Here's his original wording: >> >> >> https://web.archive.org/web/20250714002707/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/eSW2K3Ql1jzMcN-Aj1EYCGOLu9o/ >> >> One of the excuses listed by Wouters is now the claimed excuse for the >> censorship by the WG chairs. The excuse doesn't stand up to scrutiny. >> It's clear that taking away this excuse would simply result in Wouters >> and the WG chairs once again abusing their power and switching to >> another excuse for ignoring dissent (e.g., claiming that archive.org >> URLs are bad---see how I used an archive.org URL here?). I'm writing >> this with all due respect to the censors. >> >> To explain "doesn't stand up to scrutiny": IETF needs the ability to >> modify text in IETF standards, but does _not_ need modification rights >> for most documents distributed by IETF (such as typical messages sent to >> IETF mailing lists, and typical Internet-Drafts). That's why RFC 5378 >> provides an official procedure to opt out of IETF modifications. This >> procedure is exercised in various IETF documents such as RFC 5831. I'm >> using the same procedure. For further quotes from and links to the >> relevant IETF rules, see https://cr.yp.to/2025/20251024-rules.pdf. >> >> RFC 5378 does _not_ give WG chairs or IESG any control over, or any >> authority to retaliate against, people using the opt-out process---and >> yet this retaliation is exactly what Wouters and the TLS WG chairs are >> now doing, as a thinly veiled excuse for ignoring dissent. Meanwhile the >> chairs have continued to allow more restrictive copyright boilerplate >> (not following the official IETF text for opting out of modifications) >> in, e.g., dozens of messages from Zscaler's Yaroslav Rosomakho, who had >> written (inter alia) "I strongly support adoption of this document". I >> suppose the chairs will now ask Rosomakho to stop doing that, but this >> charade isn't going to hide what's actually going on here. >> >> Can I stop opting out? Well, sure, I _could_ allow IETF management to >> modify my text in any way it wants, publish the results, misattribute to >> me things that I didn't write, remove credit for things I did write, >> feed my text to AI engines for manipulation, and collect money for all >> of this, without asking me for any further permission. But, again, the >> opt-out excuse for censorship is just one of many excuses that Wouters >> had listed in the first place, and it's not as if there's something >> stopping Wouters and the chairs from making up further excuses. >> >> RFC 3934 says that "any suspension of posting privileges is subject to >> appeal, as described in RFC 2026". RFC 2026 appears to require the first >> step to be to "discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s)". So >> I'm hereby complaining to the WG chairs about the continuing pattern of >> censorship described above. The foundation of this complaint is, again, >> IETF's promise of openness; censoring dissent turns this promise into >> fraud. I'm filing this complaint on list as per the transparency >> requirements from Section 8 of RFC 2026. >> >> ---D. J. Bernstein >> >> >> ===== NOTICES ===== >> >> This document may not be modified, and derivative works of it may not be >> created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft. (That >> sentence is the official language from IETF's "Legend Instructions" for >> the situation that "the Contributor does not wish to allow modifications >> nor to allow publication as an RFC". I'm fine with redistribution of >> copies of this document; the issue is with modification.) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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]
