[saag] Re: on derivative work rights statements in emails to Security Area mailing lists

Security ADs write:
> such claims deter participation by people without legal support

To clarify, are you saying that the text "This document may not be
modified" in RFC 5831 was a deterrent to IETF participation, making that
document "disruptive to the WG process" (to quote BCP 94) and thus
allowing a ban of anyone bringing up the document on WG lists?

Also, are you claiming that the boilerplate in, e.g.,

    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/0WCNPY5YnC0Zvy9yEGjI_Cl80qQ/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/IR8OlKH3lqiJPuZrE54rk0NXbso/
    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/seat/_leTGU8YETlDWQTclaUs_YIjsJQ/

is "disruptive to the WG process"? Did I miss the ADs publicly claiming
that this boilerplate is disruptive, and calling for list bans to try to
shut the boilerplate down?

> As Area Directors, we would like to present a consistent view across
> the Security Area lists.

Then I'm sure you'll have no trouble answering the above questions.

---D. J. Bernstein

P.S. For readers bumping into this message who haven't seen the context:
Please see https://blog.cr.yp.to/20251004-weakened.html to understand
what's actually going on here.


===== 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created, and it may not be published except as an Internet-Draft.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.)

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]