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

Keith Moore <> Tue, 04 October 2022 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14159C14CE3C for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.607
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.607 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LLl7ivnv6z0O for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (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 04288C14CEFC for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 11:23:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81925C012E for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:23:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender :subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1664907782; x=1664994182; bh=s Zqc1/YDGNyexzvZ/3hPlaFx88OfHW1RTgz2/hf60F4=; b=sQISDsD48bMcZT1av NzP/cFmYKr8QvRGxI0/ghB3hmdadFlFPIUAHQFxugwwdElVpgXn9ooDSrs1roGEZ vK8g1LBptIfsf797VCP3XMCfG+Y+AVJI4u7Hq0ERxGXvV9hLO2dypJXPG4ZYtMFi zlkGL10fP8zeDQeDEVawfdPqECHqR3XfIRIRoDDYwrVk/UdRkzXL+9RIv+rcuhMd tUM+9aE3QK04kYfIzHFiN/JiTB72d/wIYHXVQnwSM2BQw1CCZowYhlyOkDSvT6SI L0g7zl0LC7kIwNICvrQGnq8CLNweJfql3p00QbllIjIFdVreE0tdOoM7r3wMRJ56 S+SCA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:Bno8Y3VR5qfCpc_7WbFF36wdRd0IWgfYwSHNPUBdTN2AgNyUMCLCXw> <xme:Bno8Y_noEUBTp8UC3u2XOHk0wcH5qFgulyNAiRJVu-XKXKOrVzRrfAUAdl0cbr56L hiQ9EM99nxH1w>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:Bno8YzZA3AkcqvBfSz71E-8GCx-3kCQiNmjcKBG5UoDa8_5SmswxX00z8xq56n2-2W3iXTBlSEk_Shv_QWGpDWYbBx6KJNkfhu8yFYLCIQ5nGZE1pvbu8w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeiuddguddvgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvfhfhjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfedtvdelie ejveekjefhueduheeviefhjeefvdfgudfhfffhudduudefgefgteevnecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifoh hrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:Bno8YyVHI18uPOukw9AD75rLxp_Q7NPRrsJj6K0DGuApk9tDsHyklg> <xmx:Bno8YxlNUBxehnFemhbxcfiKyR7uszxffUZISdmtxwuEbNEIS3ZHhQ> <xmx:Bno8Y_flZ3VvtZIsfna4qaR4sx_pb-S3Q23i3PS51pV-IguQ9CYzPw> <xmx:Bno8Y9yVga4NgfVUhjqRH2u4qhg6KnheFTLyDZRDdhD_9kgzHz_lTQ>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 14:23:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:23:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
References: <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 18:23:08 -0000

On 10/4/22 09:16, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:

> There have been repeated hints from various sides that the postings in 
> question (may) have been hurting the feelings of IETF participants (or 
> have been disturbing at least and clearly lacking respect for IETF 
> participants).

With respect, I disagree that this is a valid reason for censoring this 
individual.  I also disagree that his postings were malicious or clearly 
lacking respect for IETF participants. What's also clear is that this 
effort is a personal attack on Dan, and that many of Dan's 
supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as 
personal attacks on himself or on the community.   While everyone would 
do well to avoid resorting to ridicule out of anger at being attacked, 
that's an important part of the context that many people seem to be missing.

Essentially, your argument amounts to an argument that it's okay for the 
IETF leadership to attack individuals whose opinions they do not like, 
or that it's okay for IETF leadership to amplify individuals whose 
opinions are offensive to some, and for defensible reasons.