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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 03 October 2022 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC06DC14F6EC for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 gLnTvKbXp_g3 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:13:42 -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)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC723C14F607 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:13:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7865A32008FC for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 20:13:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 02 Oct 2022 20:13:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc: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=1664756018; x=1664842418; bh=zi80uIS55SK0EWLhWWAkZr508jEU IYe5b8rNRvY+Kog=; b=xcj1LopwCunnK5vSQbbrkb3QPeyZ8tesIafIPbese+wz nSXKG/lsEs78GEfGFcUUQzjG2gyYoT5732kmGejRnMUnVQjganjkZpQISIp91GoN 76Ep+ho/0VNY/WBE3P+q0/eIwpec8+qxm2A/bgf8CW5UNNZERjXpvZuIPZy30NDQ O4+D2EhKG0q8a6DXzjQJO8hi7uE5thpQwx0XDuhVTRGoCJSUu4xg2uqCU86moVOP LmPCPOmR9VgUeb/fsGQ3GQnSWS/9gDLY+moQ9P4SkvgXIWl2uz1qh7adlpMk/0WB FPd3zopSrCO+ulWkuaKB+a4jeZqYXlR3MRd0k/XSdA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MSk6Y1fSnsSsZUzVcgUlR9GUdRt-dcB0NDgbFvBhjJMKrqgVdS1RmA> <xme:MSk6YzPVwwqjc5i-RcJUre1rXZXL7utl7a3PDvns49-BDtLjPZg6JzczEuruYvlEC zoA6mA75RsnFg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:MSk6Y-jwUUOZ9Un7a9b_QQccCCaUY7X06ev6JQdL-RWQhngciZ8GQI1b7X9CUS17y3_V3FuRsvw199qM7hyrnL_M9Tw_f5FLlLzI3fKC8NIHGSVwEuGAqw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeehkedgfeegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpegtkfffgggfuffvfhfhjgesrgdtre ertdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfiho rhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheefuddvgefgfe evieeigfegledufeejudeiteeludegfeffleffveeiffekieffnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkh dqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MSk6Y-9uF9OHUwcZEFhc4GRJRHCd5P0JxbGyfScUlWqFbiDdT2dklw> <xmx:MSk6Yxu6PLEZPSMufQjuk4ksRpUSUWdBpc7qitm504EPfKr719u5ng> <xmx:MSk6Y9Eb2oHNTw8v4rbDw3RVzKu7NeLS0H4a85JgbvMkzw0K7YDzhA> <xmx:Mik6Y_6QAPnjhoA6T52NL8uS1Y5LxDt8CEXuAFf7rmZR7GtAhIOX-Q>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 20:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------85QMeXgDGFujbVfzHewGo0nI"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 20:13:36 -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: <>
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 00:13:47 -0000

On 10/2/22 19:02, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> Not that it actually changes the situation, but as it happens, the
> mini-rant in question arguably misrepresents, the tweet, which
> reads:
>    .@MaraGay "Masking remains an act of solidarity & respect for
>    vulnerable people, that includes people w/ disabilities, w/ chronic
>    conditions like asthma, as well as for hard-hit communities like
>    native & black communities especially, Hispanic communities"
> In the email you are referring to, this was characterized as:
>    Well the other thing to keep in mind about masking is that "it 
> remains an
>    act of solidarity & respect" for... BIPOC (natch).
> I don't think it's really necessary to unpack this, but suffice
> to say, this doesn't seem like a particularly good-faith reading
> of the tweet in question (whether you agree with said tweet or
> not).

Oh, *that's* what Adam was talking about.   (thanks for clarifying)

For what it's worth, I disagree with Dan about the merits of masking, 
and I think masks one of the few cheap, reliable, and effective 
countermeasures against COVID that we still have, at least in the US 
(given that neither the safety nor efficacy of booster vaccines that are 
currently available in the US has been empirically established.).

It's silly to call something virtue signaling if it's actually a virtue.

I'm not offended if Dan sees it that way.   The COVID situation has 
become so confusing that I'm not surprised at the wide variety of 
opinions on the subject.    I draw the line, however, at spreading 
misinformation that can harm people.