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

Adam Roach <> Tue, 04 October 2022 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6427C1526FE for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 22:54:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.291
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.291 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.398, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YELOXBdNPZHL for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 22:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9DE4C1526F7 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 22:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Zephyrus.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 2945s6bb048418 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Oct 2022 00:54:08 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1664862849; bh=WWAe4QNFBek/RMZFA29fJcSQjVbyJ/s69PcEBRxGIC4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=RtTfYHFrSapu+ZZiFrELLYxDKTbcuv50WS0tXxvbn8Rp2krk6A6VlmxmxEdV44/nd +sVLU8vqsZNsAJc1HvrVZv92Lof4Lf6MRjuDnqGdv1VGTP8LHfwQXTf9MpWGVOMsXi TsvEBBPM+5x+pPM2K5pRgpe310P0p/zWhJf2KjFo=
X-Authentication-Warning: Host [] claimed to be Zephyrus.local
To: Keith Moore <>, John C Klensin <>, Brian E Carpenter <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: Ted Lemon <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <4D6C23FCA0D271F939E9E266@PSB> <>
From: Adam Roach <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 00:54:00 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.0; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 05:54:17 -0000

On 10/3/22 18:52, Keith Moore wrote:
> I have sometimes been accused of endlessly repeating the same 
> argument, when I was actually trying to refine and clarify the 
> argument, attempting to improve it over time based on feedback. 

That kind of refinement is entirely reasonable; and I agree that it's 
part of finding consensus. I've been looking pretty closely at your 
series of statements on this topic and trying to find the evolution in 
your position, but am having difficulty doing so (which might be on me 
or on you or some combination of the two). Perhaps it would be helpful 
for readers seeking to identify such refinement -- and significantly 
more efficient for you and other participants -- if future emails were 
to simply explain where your position has evolved, and we can assume 
that everything *else* you've previously said remains in effect. 
Basically, the semantic equivalent of sending patch files instead of an 
entire source code tree each time.

> Or to put it more charitably, attention is a precious quantity and our 
> processes require a lot of it.