[TLS] Re: Notice of Moderation for Postings by D. J. Bernstein

[Alex C <[e-mail]>]

... Upon first posting to this mailing list, I'm very surprised that:

1. My message was allowed onto the mailing list.
2. Andrew Lee, famous for destroying Freenode and still insisting that 
it was a conspiracy and not his own actions, is actively reading the 
mailing list.
3. Andrew Lee is not banned from the mailing list, but Daniel Bernstein is.

One would not expect Andrew Lee to be more conducive to TLS-related 
discussions than Daniel Bernstein.

Alex


On 29/11/2025 19:13, Andrew Lee wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2025, at 9:27 AM, Alex C <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> DANIEL fucking BERNSTEIN is banned from developing crypto protocols? IETF has jumped the shark.
>>
> +1
>
> Your frustration is completely understandable.
>
> Dr. Bernstein has been repeatedly suspended over issues that are completely unrelated to the actual technical discussions. Across everywhere from TLS to stealth working groups like MODPOD, which influence decisions that affect the security and usability of billions of people and even the main IETF list, he cited RFCs and official process documents.
>
> The responses to him are meta ("you're repeating yourself") instead of engaging the real concerns about standardizing the safer PQ+ECC vs the less safe solo PQ and coming to consensus on what "rough consensus" is to avoid a moderation structure that can silence dissent with almost no transparency.
>
> Alarmingly, it appears the moderators themselves did not abstain on voting for said moderation structure.  I really do hope I'm wrong regarding said failed abstinance. To be clear, Dr. Bernstein also pointed directly to the IETF's own clear definitions of "rough consensus" using RFCs, and none of those points have been refuted. He did this, for us all quite heroically, through the US holidays since this was the best time for the stealth group to push things through, stealthily, which is why they set deadlines during times despite referencing how things are accomplished with US laws to argue their own points time and time again.
>
>  From the outside, it feels like someone is steering this process in ways that aren't being openly acknowledged. The pattern of moderation decisions just doesn't line up with what any reasonable, neutral arbitrator would do... especially in a standards body that's supposed to value openness and dissent.
>
> For you and I and likely 99% of everyone here, Dr. Bernstein is someone we grew idolizing. Few people have contributed more to modern cryptography, period.
>
> It's hard not to feel like that kind of credibility makes some folks in positions of authority within the IETF/IESG/NSA uncomfortable. 🤡
>
>