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

Hi!

Thanks for the feedback and related considerations.  The IESG has reviewed it and also reassessed the associate processes around moderation action.  Largely relying on the community consensus guidance in Section 3.1 of RFC9945 that declares “content removal or redaction” are out of scope for moderator actions and this authority not being explicitly granted in earlier RFCs, the IESG concludes that the appropriate next step is to restore the visibility of the message into the archive.

Regards,
Roman Danyliw
(as IETF Chair)  

-----Original Message-----
 From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]>
 Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 4:34 PM
 To: Toerless Eckert <[email protected]>; [email protected]
 Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Deb Cooley <[email protected]>
 Subject: [iesg] Re: Deb/IESG: Re: [Last-Call] Warning and removal of message
 
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/