Re: List moderator action

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Simon,

This moderation action has nothing to do with on-hybrid/NIST PQ crypto.  Daniel has been able to express his opposition on the mailing lists many times (he has managed to send over 350 emails to IETF mailing lists over the last year, so he is obviously not being silenced).  He has been allowed to file or escalate at least a dozen appeals, which I suspect the recipients will have spent many hours processing.

Hence, I find it astonishing that anyone could believe that Daniel's voice or opinion hasn't been heard fairly as part of the IETF standards process.  If anything, I would argue that the IETF is making great efforts to ensure that his technical opinions are considered regardless of his unwillingless to follow the prescribed rules.  Shouldn't Daniel have to follow the same rules as the rest of us?

At a technical level, I don't know whether hybrid PQ encryption should be allowed, it isn't my area of expertise, but just because Daniel believes really strongly and vocally that it is wrong and should be banned does not mean that he is right.

A key part of the IETF process is that it represents the rough consensus of the community, not unanimity.  Yes, I appreciate that there are some others who are also opposed to hybrid PQC, but in the IETF process it is down to the WG chairs, responsible AD, and wider IESG to fairly determine whether rough consensus has been achieved, backed by an appeal path, which has already been very well exercised by Daniel.

So, I'm happy that there are discussions on the merits of hybrid PQC on the security area aliases.  But I strongly disagree with any insinuation that the IETF process is not being applied fairly and consistently.

Kind regards,
Rob


On 04/05/2026, 08:40, "Simon Josefsson" <simon=[e-mail]> wrote:

Chris Box <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 at 10:23, Simon Josefsson <simon=
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>> The same advice could be given to the policy makers and moderators of
>> this list.  What is the goal of banning DJB from making these posts?
>>
>
> In this case, my goal is to avoid continued disruptive derivative rights
> claims, as defined by IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>.
> If DJB posts to the list without such a notice then it would be allowed
> through, unless of course a different community-defined line is crossed.
>
>
>> I don't understand what the moderators hope to achieve here.  It seems
>
> weird that the moderator action does not even cite what policy grants
>> them the authority to make their decision.
>>
>
> It's my fault for not being clear about that when acting. Let me try to
> remedy that now.
>
> RFC 3934 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3934.html> gives WG chairs the
> ability to restrict posting for 30 days following disruption and warnings.
> IESG Statement on Disruptive Posting
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-iesg-statement-on-disruptive-posting-20060217/>
> extends
> the RFC3934 power to administrators of non-WG lists.
> RFC 9245 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9245.html> grants the
> moderators administrative authority over the [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> list.
> IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/>
> defines
> which derivative rights claims are disruptive.
>
> I hope that makes it clear?

Thanks for clarifying, Chris.  Maybe something like that could be added
to future decisions?

Yes, it does make it clear to me that you are not acting based on any
moderation process that has been subject to IETF-wide consensus, but
instead act based on an IESG-driven agenda that appears to be about
personal difference to silence opposition to non-hybrid/NIST PQ crypto.

Please think again if banning people from participating in the
standardization process based on the above rationale is a net positive
for the IETF and wider Internet community.

/Simon