Complaint to IESG regarding censorship of dissent (Daniel J. Bernstein) - 2025-11-24
Response - 2026-03-12

Summary

The IESG received an appeal and a revision from D. J. Bernstein (appellant) on a moderation action taken by the TLS WG chairs. Specifically, the appellant has requested the IESG review the following actions:

  • Action 1: whether the TLS WG chairs’ moderation of the appellant on 17-Oct-2025 was in conformance with RFC3934.
  • Action 2: whether the TLS WG chairs imposed the moderation action for the duration permitted by RFC3934.

The IESG notes that this appeal was submitted with text that is non-conformant to RFC5387. The IESG again provides notice to the appellant that future appeals should not have this non-conformant text.

SEC AD Paul Wouters did not participate in the processing of this appeal.

The IESG upholds action 1 and determines that there was an error in action 2. Each action is discussed in further details below.

Action 1

RFC3934 states that in the case of disruptive behavior “... the WG chair should send at least one public warning on the WG mailing list. As a last resort, and typically after one or more explicit warnings and consultation with the responsible Area Director, the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of the disruptive individual...”.

The appellant’s claim states that the TLS WG chairs’ 17-Oct-2025 moderation action “wasn't preceded by private communication on point, nor was it accompanied by a ‘must be stopped immediately’ notice.

The IESG reviewed the 17-Oct-2025 moderation action announcement. It cites a prior warning from 14-Dec-2024. This announcement did not mention the warning from the AD on 7-Oct-2025 about disruptive behavior tied to the use of non-conformant derivative rights clauses.

While the moderation notice pointed to a warning on a different issue, the AD had warned the appellant on the disclaimer 10 days prior to the moderation action. The IESG upholds this moderation action as conformant with RFC3934, as posting with non-conformant derivative rights clauses can be disruptive.

While the moderation notice pointed to an old warning on a different issue, the AD warned the appellant 10 days prior to the moderation action. The action is upheld, since RFC 3934 warning was sent, and the IESG reminds the WG chairs to strictly follow the letter of RFC 3934.

Action 2

RFC3934 stipulates that “the WG chair may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days.”

The appellant sent a message to the TLS mailing list on 22-Nov-2025 that was not appearing on the list. The appellant links this failure to the TLS WG chairs extending a moderation period past the permissible 30 days. The appellant's 30-day moderation period had started on 17-Oct-2025 and should have been removed no later than 16-Nov-2025.

The IESG found that the WG chairs made a technical error in removing the appellant from moderation. The reconstruction of events is as follows:

  • 16-Nov-2025: WG Chairs made (as discovered later, incomplete) configuration change to remove the appellant from moderation.
  • 22-Nov-2025: Appellant attempts to send a message to the TLS list, but this message is held for moderation.
  • 24-Nov-2025: With notice provided by the appeal, a WG Chair and the responsible AD for the TLS WG promptly diagnosed the issue with the IETF Tools Team to find a configuration issue, and release the message.

The IESG concurs with the appellant that they remained in moderation past the 30-day limit due to this technical error in action 2.

The IESG notes that the technical guidance on implementing a moderation action in the IETF infrastructure is available here.