[TLS] Re: Request to the Working Group Chairs (according t o RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 in conjunction with RFC 2418 Section 3.4) – Re: Improving the quality of the discussion on the TLS email list
Deb Cooley <[email protected]> Sun, 2 Aug 2026 11:35:42 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.tls |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAGgd1Od38b-JLscbCYBfK_xuS09CA6pXx+jgc7hPwrbVKKiLHQ@mail.gmail.com> |
--===============6852735734119676580== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000069b4630658122d4a" --00000000000069b4630658122d4a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, It is unclear, to me, what the purpose of this email is. Are you filing a complaint (sometimes called an appeal) to the chairs? If so, this is done in accordance with RFC 2026, Section 6.5.1. You need to state what your complaint is, clearly and concisely. And you can attempt to request a resolution date, but that is not binding on the chairs. Or is there another purpose? I encourage you again to be clear and concise= . I also suggest you take a look at RFC 7282, Sections 5-7 (especially 7) [0] [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 8:35=E2=80=AFAM Ken Kubota <[email protected]> wrote= : > [Request to the Working Group Chairs (according to RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 > in conjunction with RFC 2418 Section 3.4)] > [Response to Rich Salz] > > In the event of a conflict, the first step in the escalation ladder > involves the WG Chairs [1, 2]. > > Attempting to bypass this step (your second suggestion) by filing an > appeal now would lead to an automatic rejection of the appeal, as outline= d > in [2]. > Similarly, attempting to discuss this directly without the WG Chairs (you= r > first suggestion) will waste time and resources, yet yield no resolution > regarding the decision in question. > > If you are genuinely concerned about resolving this conflict, please also > urge the WG Chairs to fulfill their responsibility in actively resolving > the issue by participating in the discussion on this mailing list. > > Numerous complaints have been lodged by experts from academia, industry, > and government. > The decision based on an alleged "rough consensus" [3] was announced on > "Sun, 19 July 2026 11:31 UTC" [3]. > To comply with the two-month deadline for complaints, an appeal must be > filed no later than > September 18th > ("All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public knowledge > of the action or decision to be challenged." [4]). > > Due to the protracted standard escalation process [1], the relatively > tight deadline, and the lack of response from the WG Chairs -- not only t= o > the many complaints, but also to my email sent on 17 July [5] --, it has > now become incumbent upon the Chairs to participate in this discussion he= re > on this mailing list. > > For this reason, I am forwarding this message to the address > [email protected] listed in [6], to ensure all Chairs (Deirdre > Connolly, Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turner) [7] receive it. > > To resolve this highly contentious issue in a constructive and fair > manner, the WG Chairs are requested to reply by > Sunday, August 9, 2026 > to all open emails, rather than providing merely summarizing statements, > ensuring that all objections are fully addressed. > > Kind regards, > > Ken Kubota > > ____________________________________________________ > > Ken Kubota > https://doi.org/10.4444/100 > > > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ByLJ7Kf1EbP2fESF5R4KRhkKPsE= / > " ... going through the standard escalation ladder > Working Group's chair(s) -> Area Director(s) -> IESG -> IAB [1] > prior to escalating to a higher instance > (according to RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 in conjunction with RFC 2418 > Section 3.4) ...," > > [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/315 > "taken in specific instances by WG Chairs should be raised through the > conflict resolution practices outlined in Section 3.4 of RFC2418 and > Section 6.5 of RFC2026." > > [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588yVW3JWrb8U= / > > [4] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/#section-6.5.4 > > [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZEmoMBkoOu9uLeZe0zcettVy5qY= / > > [6] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/email/ > > [7] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/about/ > > > > > Am 01.08.2026 um 14:16 schrieb Salz, Rich <rsalz=3D > [email protected]>: > > > > On 7/31/26, 8:24=E2=80=AFPM, "Ken Kubota" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Please show me where in 2026 and/or 2418 where it says that the > reasoning behind all decisions must be made public. Perhaps take a look = at > the definition of formal record in [1] and the discussion of how to > determine consensus at [2]. > > > > If you don=E2=80=99t like the decision the chairs have made, you can ap= peal it. > The appealing body will look at the evidence and decide who is right. Thi= s > is not a court of law, there is no testimony, diaries, notes about > discussions, or the like. > > > > [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/#section-8 > > [2] https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418/#section-3.3 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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] > --00000000000069b4630658122d4a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi,=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>It is unclear, to = me, what the purpose of this email is.=C2=A0=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div= >Are you filing a complaint (sometimes called an appeal) to the chairs?=C2= =A0 If so, this is done in accordance with RFC 2026, Section 6.5.1.=C2=A0 Y= ou need to state what your complaint is, clearly and concisely.=C2=A0 And y= ou can attempt to request a resolution date, but that is not binding on the= chairs.</div><div><br></div><div>Or is there another purpose?=C2=A0 I enco= urage you again to be clear and concise.</div><div><br></div><div>I also su= ggest you take a look at RFC 7282, Sections 5-7 (especially 7) [0]</div><di= v><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[0] <a href=3D"https://datat= racker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282">https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc= 7282</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div c= lass=3D"gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_= attr">On Sun, Aug 2, 2026 at 8:35=E2=80=AFAM Ken Kubota <<a href=3D"mail= to:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote= class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px so= lid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">[Request to the Working Group Chairs= (according to RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 in conjunction with RFC 2418 Section = 3.4)]<br> [Response to Rich Salz]<br> <br> In the event of a conflict, the first step in the escalation ladder involve= s the WG Chairs [1, 2].<br> <br> Attempting to bypass this step (your second suggestion) by filing an appeal= now would lead to an automatic rejection of the appeal, as outlined in [2]= .<br> Similarly, attempting to discuss this directly without the WG Chairs (your = first suggestion) will waste time and resources, yet yield no resolution re= garding the decision in question.<br> <br> If you are genuinely concerned about resolving this conflict, please also u= rge the WG Chairs to fulfill their responsibility in actively resolving the= issue by participating in the discussion on this mailing list.<br> <br> Numerous complaints have been lodged by experts from academia, industry, an= d government.<br> The decision based on an alleged "rough consensus" [3] was announ= ced on "Sun, 19 July 2026 11:31 UTC" [3].<br> To comply with the two-month deadline for complaints, an appeal must be fil= ed no later than<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 September 18th<br> ("All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public knowle= dge of the action or decision to be challenged." [4]).<br> <br> Due to the protracted standard escalation process [1], the relatively tight= deadline, and the lack of response from the WG Chairs -- not only to the m= any complaints, but also to my email sent on 17 July [5] --, it has now bec= ome incumbent upon the Chairs to participate in this discussion here on thi= s mailing list.<br> <br> For this reason, I am forwarding this message to the address <a href=3D"mai= lto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a> listed i= n [6], to ensure all Chairs (Deirdre Connolly, Joseph A. Salowey, Sean Turn= er) [7] receive it.<br> <br> To resolve this highly contentious issue in a constructive and fair manner,= the WG Chairs are requested to reply by<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Sunday, August 9, 2026<br> to all open emails, rather than providing merely summarizing statements, en= suring that all objections are fully addressed.<br> <br> Kind regards,<br> <br> Ken Kubota<br> <br> ____________________________________________________<br> <br> Ken Kubota<br> <a href=3D"https://doi.org/10.4444/100" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank= ">https://doi.org/10.4444/100</a><br> <br> <br> <br> [1] <a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ByLJ7Kf1EbP2fESF5R= 4KRhkKPsE/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.o= rg/arch/msg/tls/ByLJ7Kf1EbP2fESF5R4KRhkKPsE/</a><br> "=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ... going through the standard escalation ladder<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Working Group's chair(s) -> Area Director(s) -> IES= G -> IAB [1]<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 prior to escalating to a higher instance<br> =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (according to RFC 2026 Section 6.5.1 in conjunction with RFC = 2418 Section 3.4) ...,"<br> <br> [2] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iesg/appeals/artifact/315= " rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/i= esg/appeals/artifact/315</a><br> "taken in specific instances by WG Chairs should be raised through the= conflict resolution practices outlined in Section 3.4 of RFC2418 and Secti= on 6.5 of RFC2026."<br> <br> [3] <a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588y= VW3JWrb8U/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.o= rg/arch/msg/tls/tPe7m_vpmDco43588yVW3JWrb8U/</a><br> <br> [4] <a href=3D"https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/#section-6.5.4" rel= =3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/#= section-6.5.4</a><br> <br> [5] <a href=3D"https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZEmoMBkoOu9uLeZe0z= cettVy5qY/" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://mailarchive.ietf.o= rg/arch/msg/tls/ZEmoMBkoOu9uLeZe0zcettVy5qY/</a><br> <br> [6] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/email/" rel=3D"noreferre= r" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/email/</a><br> <br> [7] <a href=3D"https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/about/" rel=3D"noreferre= r" target=3D"_blank">https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/about/</a><br> <br> <br> <br> > Am 01.08.2026 um 14:16 schrieb Salz, Rich <rsalz=3D<a href=3D"mailt= o:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]= g</a>>:<br> > <br> > On 7/31/26, 8:24=E2=80=AFPM, "Ken Kubota" <<a href=3D"mai= lto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a>> wrote:<b= r> > <br> > Please show me where in 2026 and/or 2418 where it says that the reason= ing behind all decisions must be made public.=C2=A0 Perhaps take a look at = the definition of formal record in [1] and the discussion of how to determi= ne consensus at [2].<br> > <br> > If you don=E2=80=99t like the decision the chairs have made, you can a= ppeal it. The appealing body will look at the evidence and decide who is ri= ght. This is not a court of law, there is no testimony, diaries, notes abou= t discussions, or the like.<br> > <br> > [1] <a href=3D"https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/#section-8" rel= =3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2026/#= section-8</a><br> > [2] <a href=3D"https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418/#section-3.3" r= el=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2418= /#section-3.3</a><br> > _______________________________________________<br> > TLS mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">= [email protected]</a><br> > To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" = target=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> TLS mailing list -- <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">tls@i= etf.org</a><br> To unsubscribe send an email to <a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" targe= t=3D"_blank">[email protected]</a><br> </blockquote></div> --00000000000069b4630658122d4a-- --===============6852735734119676580== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVExTIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdCAtLSB0bHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcKVG8gdW5zdWJzY3JpYmUgc2VuZCBhbiBlbWFpbCB0byB0 bHMtbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK --===============6852735734119676580==--