[Tools-discuss] Re: Deb/IESG: Re: [Last-Call] Warnin g and removal of message

>  unless it falls under section 5.2
> of RFC 9945 (i.e. under legal advice to IETF LLC).

Having now found the message in question hiding in an obscure corner
of my computer, I see that it might well fall under the "legal advice"
provision, but in that case, IMHO it should be removed under that provision,
and not under the "disruptive" provision.

Regards/Ngā mihi
    Brian Carpenter

On 20-May-26 08:34, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I agree with Toerless. The community should be able to decide whether or not a
> moderation action was appropriate, and that is impossible if the allegedly
> disruptive message is invisible.
> 
> Please note that section 3.1 of RFC 9945 (BCP 245) specifically states that
> content removal or redaction is out of the scope of moderator actions. So I
> think that this action must be reversed, unless it falls under section 5.2
> of RFC 9945 (i.e. under legal advice to IETF LLC).
> 
> Regards/Ngā mihi
>      Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 20-May-26 02:58, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> Dear Deb, IESG
>>
>> For matters of full historical transparency i would really like to see those "redacted"
>> messages not be completely eliminated, but instead moved to some "quarantine" mail archive
>> location, so people who want to make their own judgements can do so. And for example
>> only an email like what you sent here could contain a pointer to such a redacted message,
>> and i wouldn't need to be otherwise searchable.
>>
>> As an example of who and when someone would want to make a judgement:
>> I for once would likely be interested to inform myself about such cases if i was in
>> Nomcom and wanted to get an idea who folks running for re-election are doing their job.
>>
>> Standard disclaimer: This suggestion is of course NOT meant for cases, where legal
>> reasons would make this transparent archiving inadvisable.
>> of cour
>>
>> Cheers
>>       Toerless
>>
>> P.S.: Please don't take this in any shape or form as having an opinion about the
>> decision one way or another, this is purely about the described process detail.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 10:37:48AM -0400, Deb Cooley wrote:
>>>    This is an official warning to Soatok Dreamseeker per RFC 3934 Section 2
>>> [0], regarding the message sent in reply to
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/YuPYdAeSRJkSkfPZsVxGtbLwAb4/
>>> (also sent to the last-call list).  The content of this message is
>>> disruptive to both the TLS working group progress and IETF Last Call
>>> progress.
>>>
>>> In addition to this warning, the message will be hidden from the mail
>>> archive for TLS and last-call.
>>>
>>> Deb Cooley
>>> Security AD
>>>
>>> [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.html#section-2
>>
>>> -- 
>>> last-call mailing list -- [email protected]
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
-----------------------------------------------
Tools-discuss mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/