[procon] Re: Conclusion of the last call on draft-ietf-procon-2026bis-08

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Uch.  Dan, this will be my last note.

On 20.06.2026 14:19, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Eliot Lear writes:
>> Actually, that's a counter-example to your argument, not mine. In
>> fact, you know about the threat precisely because the shepherd exposed it.
> "Exposed"? He amplified the threat but hid the source of the threat.


Exposed.  The point is that it was made in private and brought to 
light.  That the source wasn't revealed is a matter for the reader to 
consider.


> That's revealing part of the information but hiding the rest. This is a
> violation of an RFC 2026 rule, a rule that under the PROCON charter
> _must_ end up verbatim in 2026bis.

No it's not.  You have consistently conflated individuals and the 
organization.


>
> Simon commented on the "recent trend that IETF leadership does not
> aspire to transparency of an open standardization organization". You
> said this was "proposterous". I pointed to this chair behavior as one of
> many recent examples of non-transparency.
>
> You keep insisting that IETF isn't completely opaque. So what? Nobody
> claimed that IETF is completely opaque.

Again, you have mangled my words.  I have not claimed that the IETF 
isn't completely opaque: I claim that it has improved its transparency 
over the years.  I'll go further: I challenge you to find a single 
standards organization of the IETF's stature or larger that has the 
level of transparency the IETF has, where people do not conduct private 
conversations amongst themselves, and where ALL conversations are out in 
the open.


>
>> You are essentially arguing that the IETF should prohibit private
>> communications among participants on any matter related to standards
>> development.
> "Should prohibit"? RFC 2026 _already_ has a rule requiring WGs etc. to
> maintain public records including "complete and accurate minutes of
> meetings" and "all written contributions from participants that pertain
> to the organization's standards-related activity." The TLS WG chair
> incident that I pointed to is in violation of this rule.

That's a preposterous misinterpretation of 2026.  That line refers to 
maintaining a mailing list archive.

>
> This isn't some obscure rule. It's the main point of a top-level section
> in RFC 2026.

And it's been held to, your misinterpretation withstanding.

I've elided the rest of your message as you have repeatedly 
misrepresented my views.

Eliot