[ISP] IETF Issues

[Ken Kubota]

Hi Rob,

In response to your message: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-EI2nE1ztYd8mxY6OM8UD8w2VSs/

If this hypothesis were true, you would need to answer the following questions:

1. Why is former NSA lifetime employee Deb Cooley, now serving as Security Area Director, forcing through a document [1] that deflects Professor Bernstein's concerns [2]? This action appears designed to weaken end-to-end encryption. This is clearly not what "neutral informational documents" entail, as Brian Carpenter claimed [3]. No legitimate standards body would publish technical documentation on vehicles without essential safety features like seatbelts; yet the IETF effectively does so here.

2. Why has Professor Bernstein's input been subjected to arbitrary intervention [4]? There is no legitimate reason for this treatment. His core argument, if I am not mistaken, is that the IETF should not claim the right to modify appeals, a precedent that obviously already exists [5]. If the IETF were genuinely interested in resolving this conflict, it could address it directly; instead, it appears to be acting to undermine Professor Bernstein's efforts to ensure strong cryptography. Professor Bernstein typically argues with clarity and precision, yet his points are being obscured rather than considered.

3. Why does the IETF fail to adhere to commonly accepted conflict-of-interest policies? As noted by Professor Bernstein, the IETF seems unique in its disregard for standard guidelines regarding conflicts of interest. Instead, any mention of a potential conflict of interest is immediately characterized as a personal attack.

None of these critical issues have been addressed.
Instead, the IETF publishes a document that objectively advances the interests of the NSA.
(It is particularly ironic that the Security Area Director enforcing such measures happens to be a former lifetime employee of the NSA. Let us simply note the facts without further commentary.)

Kind regards,

Ken Kubota

____________________________________________________

Ken Kubota
https://doi.org/10.4444/100


[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8yxxrVX6RZ0DAyJQInEsz6iV694/

[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/gwJ35jrHgNi0Q-SXamXy__f2f_w/

[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ongtYUoPZkqfKUeKbIq6grRQjLM/

[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/V67wl1pWaPg40S6ABfBHuwc0oXM/

[5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/gwJ35jrHgNi0Q-SXamXy__f2f_w/
"IETF itself also carries out problematic modifications. For example, in
May 2025, IESG posted an IESG-mangled version of an appeal that I had
filed, and then in its response confused exactly the point obfuscated by
that mangling. When I complained about the mangled document, the IETF
Executive Director responded not by apologizing but instead by asserting
that IETF management had the power to do whatever it wanted."