[Last-Call] Re: Complaint to ADs and IESG regarding TLS WG chairs falsely claiming WG consensus to issue an RFC for draft-ietf-tls-mldsa

[IETF Chair <[e-mail]>]

==[ processing note ]==
The IESG observes that the appeal text uses non-conformant notices inconsistent with the IETF policies as outlined by the IESG Statement on Clarifying Derivative Works Rights [1]. The IESG reiterates that “any process owner required to handle a Contribution with … a [non-conformant legal] notice can require the notice be removed” and that “repeated inclusion of such notices may be considered a disruption and moderated” [1].

In the interest of the community having an available appeal venue, the IESG is choosing to accept this appeal and ignore the non-conformant text. The rationales on why such notices may be disruptive as outlined in [2] [3] do not apply in this case. Unlike a WG, plenary, or non-WG lists, this request was directed to the IESG mail alias for processing. The IESG has ready access to legal counsel to review and accept the risk of such claims.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-derivative-works-rights/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/d5tK-Ut1QZtgSaodWGC2MCgwqcw/
[3] slide #8 of the IETF 124 plenary materials, https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/124/materials/slides-124-ietf-sessc-2-ietf-124-plenary-part-2-00
==[ processing note ]==

Hi Dr. Bernstein!

With this email, I am confirming that the IESG has received and accepted your appeal.

Regards,
Roman Danyliw
(as IETF Chair, for the IESG)

-----Original Message-----
 From: D. J. Bernstein <[e-mail]>
 Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 7:28 AM
 To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
 Cc: [e-mail]
 Subject: [iesg] Complaint to ADs and IESG regarding TLS WG chairs falsely claiming WG consensus to issue an RFC for draft-ietf-tls-mldsa

[snip]