Re: Affiliation disclosure in security WGs

I was going to keep quiet for the nth rehash, but:

> On Jun 29, 2026, at 17:45, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 1) “some my (sic) contractually be unable to disclose”
> 
> 
> This is the very definition of an undercover agent.

I believe the colloquial English sentence would be “you don’t get out much?”.
(Not a native speaker here.)

Outside mystery movie plots, there are a million reasons why NDAs exist.
Many of those exist for a long time, or even indefinitely.
Most don’t even consider nefarious influencing, so there is no thinking about weird disclosure requirements.

Putting unnecessary additional onus on the IETF leadership simply reduces the set of candidates.
We already have a too-small set in many places, so additional onus simply is a non-starter.

(Unless that solves a real problem.  Vivid imagination does not count.)

Grüße, Carsten