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

Paul Wouters <> Tue, 11 October 2022 16:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081DEC15952B for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.106
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.106 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YeJz5_Y2nHP0 for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (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 33FAEC1594A3 for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id l32so1279662wms.2 for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WfuWTM9OBjxMl3GLkmVF7qMVDfbOlQr3SOcoGhWqCJA=; b=sTLaCuaJLWA1v6fNRI+9lj6zo/YsnhVLArHRiV/Vt643HdjEjrW+O6cbGpk5kj7uVF 0rX+Xt2xWj+M7Luhs+0USVdNrtpjXhGhcpKAuf4MHwUKlHaDyiAWToHggfLhUGBz09wJ Gf/Ox9Kw0fQD44MBtdJnxG9zdya1m/iZljX6c=
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:message-id :reply-to; bh=WfuWTM9OBjxMl3GLkmVF7qMVDfbOlQr3SOcoGhWqCJA=; b=5BylvwDV33gZRRUCNBK+IMW0catCoJpfTZyEybTVqcLBEupe7bjpgPIklOkFmj3AZg puQo7cQGZAi/GOuosB1aqn+BmX+dUl8BAFNVyLh0AV3FXtVHKBOs+/lgaR5f74MdHIg/ TIXlTPREuWqFDHqCPBqsASF8muYv2OM8wqm6VAnIqtIanvVeb2sdfF35cywirFpOjojK WrPPXzNAiHv7VdP2jCj61viATJ9WPRHBkFdobUlzQobZZ3Svkk4l7OB9l9NXjZEZnvR5 wcgxWOzwm/aYqnfqLtkaDcLtFdL/12fBRseSmBhgY5v2LYq68iDu6pvYE8WQa9Rxt7V0 A/qg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf3+DUSy2tZyanmxKttqk9kvcHgROkthkQYq3N4xQQHV6wvjw/YO HTRNkeTvNon2sguD/h1S2ESajOiVv1Ml6GZu54qHgZUpM1B42A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM74hxspLHqPYenEB0DbfRfNM10RZff/BH5+wbjWQHSF6y4U1aM/qnc75gScOhRWhuPsR7PT+eUiwUlWyMXz1Ng=
X-Received: by 2002:a7b:cb41:0:b0:3b3:34d6:189f with SMTP id v1-20020a7bcb41000000b003b334d6189fmr24288589wmj.6.1665504347540; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:05:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Paul Wouters <>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:05:36 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Dan Harkins <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000002478705eac47326"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] OT: change BCP 83 [Re: 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, 11 Oct 2022 16:05:53 -0000

On Mon, Oct 10, 2022 at 11:43 PM Dan Harkins <> wrote:

> On 10/10/22 6:45 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> > Can you explain how that draft referred to you in a way that is
> “borderline libellous”, as no version ever seemed to have contained your
> name?
>    And hence the limitations of grepping the draft versus reading the
> draft.
> -07 said, without any evidence whatsoever:
>    "The racist behavior in the community that has
>     surfaced as a result of this larger debate among technologists (see
>     for example
>     intersectional-dots-00 and
>     draft-les-white-tls-preferred-pronouns-00 ) reportedly pushed away
>     participants and observers [Conger]."

Thank you for clarifying the alleged libel referred to the anonymous draft
written by you that
was quoted by multiple authors of another draft document (though you only
accused one of them).

  A statement doesn't necessarily need to *name* a person as long as a

> reasonable person would understand the statement as referring to him or
> her. And it is my contention that a reasonable person who is tangentially
> familiar with the IETF would understand either -07 or -08 as referring
> to me. I mean, who do you think wrote [White1] and [White2] which the
> draft says is behavior that pushed away technologists and is an
> illustration of the need to struggle against the racists amongst us?

I am aware that after I tracked down and exposed you as the author, you
publicly confirmed writing them.

Who are these racists amongst us? Well, it's pretty clear.

I will let the PR run its course on this one.

>   Now compare that to the explicit mention of you by one of those drafts.
> It wished to thank you for your "public demonstration of courage by denying
> an audience to haters and white supremacists." Yet you are very proud of
> this public demonstration (you unsubscribing from the general ietf list).
> So what's the issue?

The issue is that I felt bullied off the mailinglist by you
and a few others. Tihs was made possible
by the creation of admin-discuss@ and last-call@. And that even my leaving
is considered by you as malicious
virtue signing. Note that this is after I blocked, unblocked and blocked
you from emailing me at my personal email
due to the nature and content of your emails over the course of about 2

Or as XKCD has put it:

Anyway. I have the piece of information I was looking for. Thank you.


>    Dan.
> --
> "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
> escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius