Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair

Tao Effect <> Sat, 28 December 2013 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74EA1AE35F for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:37:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.334
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m9rXecVzWvYI for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:37:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44B21AE033 for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:37:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B6728006D; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:37:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to;; bh=rxrtgCRgpnNSp1DWY nQbrnvu1fU=; b=AfBSqHcyso6QepOq71pIbO8LK53aNDxUjn2wfT0PBlnU3MEID x8mDnVDMf0N2yPGdwvgSkyo+ZcDCH8jvuz46NBr9eX1stMHbLEOJfiQUuODbjZoB bt2Lr2FI21kjxgpilkjWNKl8R8tkF0bmYug0S0s2KZtLGzHREuwI8kV8CQ=
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A09CE280069; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:37:05 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8971EBBB-3E21-46A5-BB92-2C75192AD055"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Tao Effect <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:36:58 -0500
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Yoav Nir <>, David McGrew <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Requesting removal of CFRG co-chair
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 21:37:14 -0000

On Dec 28, 2013, at 2:06 PM, Yoav Nir <> wrote:
> We did not appoint Kevin, so we don't have firing power either. Officially, it was the chair of IRTF who appointed Kevin, so he's the one who can remove him.

Thanks very much Yoav!

That helps clear things up a bit for me, although not completely...

I'm trying to combine what you've said here with David's email.

For reference, here's the relevant bit from that email:

On Dec 26, 2013, at 12:42 PM, David McGrew <> wrote:
> When Ran stepped down, I sought a co-chair.   Strictly speaking, there does not need to be a co-chair.   It is sufficient for IRTF purposes to have a single chair.   In practice, it is better to have two chairs.   This is especially true when the RG chair also authors RG documents; having a second chair enables us to avoid having a potential conflict of interest.   There was not a public call for a co-chair to replace Ran; this is not unusual for an IRTF Research Group.   I did have private discussions with a bunch of potential co-chair candidates at the time, who were people that were active in CFRG and in IETF security area at that time.  Lars Eggert, who chairs the entire IRTF, was also involved in these discussions and was quite helpful.   I asked the RG to affirm Kevin in the role of co-chair.  I cannot recall anyone expressing any reservations about Kevin at the time, either publicly or privately.

So, by combining your statements together, it sounds to me like David did not need the permission of the group to appoint Kevin, but he was polite and decided to ask for it anyway.

Now, however, the group has had a chance to get to know Kevin, whereas before they appeared completely unfamiliar.

Given this extra knowledge, it seems like the group's feedback on the appointment is more informed *now* than it was then, and hence perhaps deserving for more weight and consideration.

David McGrew <> wrote:
> The Research Group needs to have chairs that it trusts, and who are trusted by the broader IETF and Internet communities that they work with.  People who have worked with Kevin trust him, but there is widespread mistrust of NSA in those broader communities.   The IRTF policies have not anticipated this situation.   Please bear with the IRTF leadership team for a little bit; the holiday week in the U.S. has slowed us down.
Yoav Nir <> wrote:
> So the rest is my guess of what the process will be like. 
> After a few weeks (at least a week after New Year's), when he's satisfied that all the arguments have been made, Lars will consult with David, Kevin, and whoever else he thinks is appropriate, and decide what to do with the petition. 
> If Trevor or you or anyone else is not satisfied with Lars's decision, there's likely some avenue of appeal. My guess is first to the IRSG, and if you're still not satisfied, to the IAB.

Roger. Thank you for your help, and all the clarifications and transparency on this!


Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.