[TLS] Re: Response to CoI Complaints

Andrew,

Let me take this opportunity to correct and repeat the warning:

The answer is yes; see [1]. This matter is resolved as far as the IESG is concerned. Continuing to raise this point here is a violation of CoC under BCP 94 / RFC 7154 and the mail list procedures [2] that you agreed to when you joined this list. Consider this your public warning under BCP 25 and RFC 3934 and that continued posting on this topic will result in your posts being moderated.

I will also take this opportunity to note that you can continue to raise objections as noted in Deb’s email [3], but it does not appear that you have.

spt

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/126
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cEUcbe27qZUBnapkDMExOmHC5I4/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/FaGA4zxk9u6_HLjCRw31HtEuxoY/

> On Jul 16, 2026, at 14:41, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Sean,
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.
> 
> I said "it will be impossible to trust Area Directors if structural concerns cannot be raised." Alarmingly, you responded by threatening to moderate me for raising structural concerns.
> 
> So it's on the record:
> 
> 1. You cited "RFC 3954" [1]. The audacity of threatening moderation under a Cisco traffic monitoring specification, in a debate where Cisco employees are voting en bloc, is noted.
> 
> 2. The matter is not resolved as your link did not address, nor could it have addressed, whether an AD with 37 years at NSA constitutes a structural conflict of interest in a specific proceeding where NSA employees are actively participating in support of the draft she oversees.
> 
> These are very different questions.
> 
> As a result, a prior ruling on one does not foreclose the other.
> 
> 3. Significant and off-topic character testimonials were sent without warning. Factually incorrect claims about AD authority were sent without warning.
> 
> 4. I sent cited clarifications, you sent a warning citing CISCO traffic monitoring as authority.
> 
> If you should so choose to moderate me, it will be clear that the factual and non-trivial NSA relations haunting this list is "that which cannot be spoken," or in other words, the list's Voldemort.
> 
> I appreciate this happening publicly and the fact that it is archived.
> 
> The record speaks for itself.
> 
> With love and respect,
> Andrew
> 
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3954/
> 
>> On Jul 16, 2026, at 11:25 AM, Sean Turner <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 16, 2026, at 12:22, Andrew Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Instead, it's whether a 37-year NSA veteran can serve as a neutral arbiter
>> 
>> Andrew,
>> 
>> The answer is yes; see [1]. This matter is resolved as far as the IESG is concerned. Continuing to raise this point here is a violation of CoC under BCP 94 / RFC 7154 and the mail list procedures [2] that you agreed to when you joined this list. Consider this your public warning under BCP 25 and RFC 3954 and that continued posting on this topic will result in your posts being moderated.
>> 
>> spt
>> 
>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/126
>> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cEUcbe27qZUBnapkDMExOmHC5I4/
>> 
>

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