[TLS] Scope of the IAB's appeal response

[IAB Chair <[e-mail]>]

TLS WG,

The IAB notes that its response
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/310> to Daniel J.
Bernstein’s 2026-04-24 appeal
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/272> is being
cited in ongoing working group discussion. To prevent that response from
being read more broadly than intended, the IAB offers the clarification
below. It takes no position on any other matter now before the WG, its
chairs, or the IESG.

The IAB denied the appeal. It did not find that the chairs' determination
of rough consensus to adopt fell outside the discretion that RFC 2418
affords them, nor that the responsible AD and the IESG acted outside their
process role in declining to overturn that determination.

The relevant observation regarding the responsible AD was narrow. The IAB
noted that the initial characterization of the adoption call by the
responsible AD did not accurately describe the record, and that a more
precise account followed. It was offered as encouragement to chairs and ADs
to take care when summarizing participant responses. The observation
concerned the accuracy of that account, not the intent behind it. It was
not a finding that the responsible AD acted in bad faith, engaged in
misconduct, or breached the IETF’s conduct norms.

The IAB has also seen its response read as reaching conclusions it did not
state. The IAB did not determine that consensus to adopt was absent, nor
did it overturn any consensus call. Its response should not be read as
reaching conclusions on matters beyond the appeal, including the subsequent
working group last call or the fact that a different Area Director became
responsible for the working group.

Dhruv Dhody,

(as IAB Chair, for the IAB)