[TLS] Re: Response to CoI Complaints

I’m disappointed to read that any defense for Deb is even felt necessary.
Deb over the years has been a helpful community member, contributing her
knowledge and expertise. In many cases, she was the one to stand up in an
IETF room to provide insights and was essentially the last word as she was
correct and level headed in each of those instances.

I’ll have to go look at other threads as it seems the focus here is in the
wrong place.

There has been a proliferation of attacks on individuals of late and it’s
counterproductive. I was on the receiving end as have many on sets of
certain lists. End result is that people are walking away from the IETF. My
own response was to pause my interactions on the mailing list and see that
many on one mailing list refrain from interacting with aggressors on the
list. It’s great to see everyone speaking up for Deb as she’s amazing and
has dedicated a number of years to serving the IETF and she is more than
qualified.

I’d like to see some action where more could be done on the accuser. These
types of interactions are harmful to the community. And while there needs
to be a process for appeals, it seems there’s quite a bit of abuse lately.

Best regards,
Kathleen

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 5:35 AM Dennis Jackson <ietf=
[email protected]> wrote:

> I have only interacted with Deb in the past couple of years, but those
> interactions have consistently demonstrated her integrity, fairness, and
> willingness to engage with challenging but important issues.
>
> The lazy ad-hominem attacks which have characterized recent discussions
> have no place in the IETF community and reflect far more poorly on those
> making them than on their intended targets.
>
> We owe our ADs, and Deb in particular, a great deal of gratitude for the
> time & energy they sacrifice to keep the IETF running.
>
> Best,
> Dennis
> On 15/07/2026 19:49, 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.
>
> The recourse for anyone who doesn’t believe this is a sufficient response
> is free to take a look at [RFC 8713, Section 7](
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8713/#section-7).
>
> Just a couple of minor points:
>
> 1.  Retirement means that I don't work for NSA anymore.  I earn no
> salary.
>
> 2.  Retired does not mean the same as 'defected'.
>
> 3.  My bio is accurate see here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/person/Deb%20Cooley. 37+ years of service in
> Cybersecurity which used to be Information Assurance, which used to be
> Information Security, which used to be COMSEC.
>
> 4.  If you read RFC 9151, read all of it.  Section 6 and 7 have MAY
> requirements which improve interoperability.  Note that the draft was
> published in February 2021 when Adrian Farrel was the ISE.  It was reviewed
> by a noteworthy set of reviewers including the late Jim Schaad.
>
>
> Deb Cooley
> Sec AD
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
>

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