Re: Complaint to IAB regarding a declaration of consensus to adopt a non-hybrid draft

Eliot Lear writes:
> I'm going to zoom in on just one point, other than to add that you are
> fundamentally mistaken to elide the IETF and IRTF.

Huh? I asked whether you think the IRTF chair was wrong in

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190710185447/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/Aqe9HaZQ4JStGeXeWujt6hLS6uU/

when he (1) quoted the IRTF rule (which IETF also has) that chairs
"perform the administrative functions of the group", (2) concluded on
this basis that "co-chairs are little more than group secretaries", and
(3) refused on this basis to remove an NSA employee as co-chair of CFRG.

I'm not sure what you think "elide" means, but in any case I don't see
how you're answering my question. Do you think that some difference
between IETF and IRTF radically changes the meaning of the rule "perform
the administrative functions of the group" that IRTF copied from IETF?
If so, how? Do you think dictatorship is an "administrative function"?
More precisely, an "administrative function" in IETF and not in IRTF?

> > > Section 3.3 of RFC 2418 states
> > > clearly:
> > > > It is left to the discretion of the working group chair how to evaluate the
> > > > level of consensus.
> > > Discretion is clearly *not* clerical.
> > I don't understand your logic here. You think clerks can't have
> > discretion in how to carry out their clerical tasks?
> In the strictest sense, no.  A clerk must implement the rules handed to
> them.

Wait a minute. A moment ago you seemed to be making a bold, broad claim
that clerks can't have _any_ discretion. Now you're retreating to a much
weaker statement that clerks are bound by rules.

Here's a random example of clerks explicitly having discretion in how
they're carrying out their tasks while at the same time explicitly being
bound by rules: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/winfieldil/latest/winfield_il/0-0-0-171
says "The village clerk has discretion to compile said minutes in
his/her chosen format and content provided that, at a minimum, said
minute format and content complies with local and state law."

Similarly, RFC 2418 tasks chairs with finding out whether there's
consensus. RFC 2418 gives an example of _how_ a chair can evaluate this:
namely, stating "what he or she believes to be the consensus view" and
then checking this with the WG. That's just like a secretary compiling
minutes and sending those minutes to the group for review and approval.
Secretaries will vary in the exact procedures for this, but allowing
those variations is _not_ authorizing secretaries to seize power and
replace honest minutes with whatever they want the minutes to say.

As I pointed out before, the "believes to be the consensus view" wording
in RFC 2418 would make _absolutely no sense_ with your notion that
consensus means whatever the chairs say it means. You didn't respond to
this.

> And I'll point out you ignored my logic as to why the chair function
> *cannot* be clerical.

Huh? I explicitly said "I don't understand your logic here" and then
stated my best guess for your logic. This led to the exchange above.

---D. J. Bernstein


===== NOTICES =====

IETF BCP 78, "Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF Trust", provides a
modification right "unless explicitly disallowed in the notices
contained in a Contribution (in the form specified by the Legend
Instructions)".

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" is as follows: "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."
<https://trustee.ietf.org/wp-content/uploads/Corrected-TLP-5.0-legal-provsions.pdf>

The same language is used in, e.g., RFC 5831. The same language hereby
applies to this document. This is not disclaiming or limiting the
applicability of IETF policies; it is strictly following IETF policies.

Rationale: I'm fine with redistribution of copies of this document. The
issue is with modification, such as (1) IESG's May 2025 posting of an
IESG-mangled version of an appeal that I had filed and (2) IETF
management selling IETF mailing-list text to AI companies.