Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins

John C Klensin <> Sun, 02 October 2022 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53ED7C14CF19 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:03:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.908
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SJcgrw4yjfCa for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E586C14F724 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=JcK-HP5) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1of3JT-00058b-JH; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:03:39 -0400
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 14:03:39 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>,
Message-ID: <3D4F4763DD0EBFB47798FA1E@JcK-HP5>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: BCP 83 PR-Action Against Dan Harkins
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Last Calls <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 18:03:42 -0000

--On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 10:33 -0700 Eric Rescorla
<> wrote:

> In particular, my experience is that it's far earlier to
> address misbehavior early on with smaller interventions than
> to wait until there is a long pattern of misbehavior and then
> ban
> someone. Nominally, we do have such mechanisms (SAA, etc.)
> but, they have proven so difficult to apply that the nominally
> last resort of the PR Action instead becomes in practice the
> only resort in practice.

Based on observations in recent months, I have somewhat more
confidence in the SAA mechanism than you do although I would
have agreed with you a couple of years ago,   As I said earlier
today, I'm concerned about their perceptions of what they can or
should do when the smaller and more private interventions (even
publicly suspending someone from a particular list for a short
time) fail, but a small bit of tuning would fix that.

Situations in which all of the discretion --about whether to act
and how-- is vested in a single WG chair or list maintainer
without obligations to consult, e.g., either a co-chair or AD,
may be another matter.   Without criticizing anyone, I tend to
not trust any one person's judgment (including my own) in
isolation or without consultation, especially if they perceive
themselves as being abused.