[TLS] Re: Response to CoI Complaints

+1

I agree that Deb has been a good and very professional AD. I do not think people should be judged based on where they used to work or where they work today; they should be judged based on their actions and contributions. I also agree that all proposals in the IETF should be evaluated based on their technical merit.

The IETF has a democratic process for electing leadership positions. I suspect that most of the people who recently showed up only to complain about ML-KEM, Deb, and Paul did not volunteer for any positions or provide input to NOMCOM.

Cheers,
John Preuß Mattson

From: Nadim Kobeissi <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, 16 July 2026 at 09:59
To: Damien Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: TLS List <[email protected]>
Subject: [TLS] Re: Response to CoI Complaints

Hi everyone,

I have not had the opportunity to interact with Deb prior to her assuming the role of TLS AD, so I don’t know her very well.

However, I am very much opposed to these unfair attempts to caricature her and reduce her, and think that such approaches (a) oversimplify people and (b) are not intellectually rigorous.

I think that Deb has made a reasonable case for her independence. Furthermore, I think that she has so far been generally reasonable, fair and professional, and I say this even though she has privately disagreed with me on a number of assessments.

I don’t agree with trying to reduce people to a caricature of themselves, whether they may agree or disagree with us.

Furthermore, I think that all proposals in the IETF should be judged based purely on their technical merit. When assessing the security of a scheme, for example, we should make technical arguments. I don’t care if the scheme was submitted by the Dark Lord Sauron or conversely by Lord Elrond, Master of Rivendell. Both are completely irrelevant.

Nadim Kobeissi
Symbolic Software • https://symbolic.software

On 16 Jul 2026, at 4:15 AM, Damien Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jul 2026, Deb Cooley wrote:

For the record:  I have been a Security Area Director since March 2024, that
is 2 years and a couple of months.


There have been previous inquiries into my ability to perform the duties of
Security Area Director  via the SSHM working group, and as part of
complaints against the TLS chairs/AD.  Those have been responded to by the
IESG, the artifacts are below:


https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ssh/7KRZCX_bvZWUOG50HqDg_KVT77c/

https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/ (see artifacts 125/126, as
well as 128/129)


In addition to the artifacts above, I suggest that there might be people for
whom I have worked with that could give an opinion on my work ethic and
conduct for the last 2 plus years.

I haven't experienced anything other than helpfulness, even-handedness
and professionalism from Deb in my interactions via the SSHM WG over the
last few years. She's been an effective AD who has helped the WG though
its inception to publication of its first RFCs. Ironically, and somewhat
problematically for her critics given the nature of their criticism, the
first of these was for a hybrid key exchange (RFC 9941) using a non-NIST
set of algorithms.

It's very disappointing watching people make smears and insinuations
without evidence, including "just asking questions" that are filled
with innuendo. IMO this behaviour reflects more on the critic than
the criticised, but it also saps time and energy for everyone else
who has to wade though the muck.

-d_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

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