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

Phillip Hallam-Baker <> Mon, 03 October 2022 02:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27853C14F748 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 19:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.411
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 v6RVhbJGMN6Y for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC47DC14F612 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w13so10183662oiw.8 for <>; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=+jS9alJiR9fXRaFHX0/C7jNyWZy6lIKgvTnpHULBcuA=; b=Fp65GsbjNwe5O7/kRRmp8fCvT03ksCWvAEHPglqsqwjoIabS1f15b7urHwzKXF4bfu B/uOHgQ+/DNhW35kjYMdIH+ha58GJ3Uki+qe8JUkv/Wf0Zj15bo7sgoPedbP5YjGuOYT nOnV7xc8ERRA3F9FweM+hDVPziL6c+Dh4puA1dUHwXHAWcF0H8FBtKJbxpo0KSOYQDNt 3qwxRl3JZG/MhOl299fRgsKMlHj0jIOfOr2Em+KDqGMAdtYlQD/0IELoMtkxEyZLRT1x I93wm/2uh1NI43AXAeu2eXNdhaiw1tRLuenUdvFP6YSx9CUlKNSMK7F5hXs8uEwCZouH Zt4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1+vOc0PgQNs8TnLcyEvg2XxxAhK6h/vwpZbvHI637T+CeLm0EB igkZkCbmz7aa7UpU3ci7FRwjYXYJLP5vbV3MrSQ0of+X
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5XcCOcA3M7i3zVAVD3d47dQJ+QhQ/MOls1uAt/CoZNXJ4pQ4oVwBY5jkXMWWQNAJPmV6earI+J1WRbq2GGe10=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1a87:b0:34f:67aa:5089 with SMTP id bm7-20020a0568081a8700b0034f67aa5089mr3248624oib.108.1664765870054; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 19:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 22:57:37 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>
Cc: Keith Moore <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000051a08205ea1882f6"
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 02:57:53 -0000

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 9:04 PM Brian E Carpenter <> wrote:

> On 03-Oct-22 13:17, Keith Moore wrote:
> > On 10/2/22 19:55, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I would also like to see a rule that any WG chair who starts off with a
> statement of the form 'we have to do this in 12 months so we have to do it
> this way' is automatically booted from the WG 12 months later. Every single
> time I have seen that used it has been playing dirty pool and none of the
> WGs has delivered anything of note in four years.
> >
> > I would instead say that any group that, whether via the charter or the
> chair, is told "you have to do it this way" should be immediately shut down.
> Hang on. There are occasions when the charter is quite restrictive for a
> good reason connected with the "running code" part of our mantra. For
> example, I think the original NFS WG was restricted by
> backwards-compatibility with proprietary NFS. (However, I don't know where
> I'd look to find the original NFS charter.) In the current DMARC charter it
> says:
> "The working group will seek to preserve interoperability with the
> installed base of DMARC systems, and provide detailed justification
> for any non-interoperability."
> I'm sure there are many other examples, as well as quite a lot of charters
> referring to a personal I-D as a starting point. So while charters cannot
> preempt the final rough consensus, they can certainly restrict the starting
> point.

I have no problem when there is a legitimate reason for picking a
particular approach and this is stated up front. Many IETF working groups
are started to standardize an existing protocol - S/MIME, OpenPGP, etc. etc.

When I propose an approach two years before a WG is started, then get told
that there is 'no time' to consider the approach I took and then seven
years after the WG is formed, nine years after I made my proposal, I am
reviewing the last call of the RFC taking that approach... well, I come to
conclusions, I do, I come to conclusions.