Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Eliot Lear (eliotlear@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:52:03 JST Eliot Lear

   • Daniel J. Bernstein

   @djb (1+3) He hasn't said "don't form a working group", and he hasn't objected to the charter. Yes, he's annoyed by the conversation. (2) Yes. Deb has far less conflict than most industry participants, as she is retiring. If the IESG applied the standard you suggest, no industry or government participant could serve, putting an end to the IETF and any industry-driven effort. That would leave who exactly?

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel J. Bernstein (djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:52:02 JST Daniel J. Bernstein

     in reply to

     @eliotlear Your quote is fabricated. I said he (and others, including me) expressed concerns. Instead of answering, the NSA AD filed WG-creation forms as if discussion had settled. As for your "no industry or government participant" strawman: I'm talking specifically about NSA. That's an organization that internally asked whether cryptographic standards could be made "weak enough" for NSA to break, and that at last report had a cryptographic sabotage budget of a quarter billion dollars a year.

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     rsalz (rsalz@ioc.exchange)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:53:55 JST rsalz

     in reply to

     • Daniel J. Bernstein

     @djb @eliotlear Dan, do you have any specific instances where Deb did not act clearly transparently and in the best interests of the ietf? Not her employer. Her.

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel J. Bernstein (djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:53:55 JST Daniel J. Bernstein

     in reply to

     • rsalz

     @rsalz @eliotlear I gave an example earlier in the thread; but, again, the recusal obligation is triggered simply by the appearance of a conflict of interest. https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/iesg-coi-policy/ says "In cases where a clear conflict of interest exists, an Area Director should normally recuse". It doesn't say "Wait until the evidence of bad decisions is so overwhelming that you feel pressured to do what you would have done without this policy existing in the first place".

     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Daniel J. Bernstein (djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:53:56 JST Daniel J. Bernstein

     in reply to

     @eliotlear There you go again with these ridiculous "everyone" exaggerations. The actual issue at hand is an IETF security-area directorship being given to an employee of NSA, an organization with a policy and track record of sabotaging security standards.

   • Embed this notice
     Eliot Lear (eliotlear@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:53:57 JST Eliot Lear

     in reply to

     • Daniel J. Bernstein

     @djb And again, the job can't get done if we require everyone to recuse on a large portion of decisions. It's simply not possible. Standards organizations are *riddled* with these sorts of conflicts. That's the world in which we live. What you can do is show where there is bad work. Deb's job is to see that the process was followed and only at the end to spot issues that have not been properly addressed.

   • Embed this notice
     Eliot Lear (eliotlear@mastodon.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:53:58 JST Eliot Lear

     in reply to

     • Daniel J. Bernstein

     @djb Of *course* it's fabricated because my point is that or something like that is what one would say to object to the charter. And as you should well know by now- you're not new at this- one AD doesn't make a decision on a charter, but rather it's the entire IESG. That's another protection against CoI. And even right now, you can comment to the entire IESG up until the 15th, after which it will be discussed on the 19th. Details at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-sshm/ballot/.

   • Embed this notice
     Daniel J. Bernstein (djb@mastodon.cr.yp.to)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Sep-2024 22:53:58 JST Daniel J. Bernstein

     in reply to

     @eliotlear OK, looks like time for Recusal 101: Do you think that it's okay for U.S. Supreme Court justices with conflicts of interest to not recuse themselves since there's more than one judge on the court? And it's okay for lower-court judges with conflicts of interest to not recuse themselves since there's an appeals process? Do you understand what the purpose of recusal is?