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

Joel Halpern <> Sun, 02 October 2022 17:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E30DC14CF19; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 10:28:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.807
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.807 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 gaWIyAkWKEUG; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 10:28:05 -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 DE5ACC14CE2C; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4MgWBp4NDRz1pNCM; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 10:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=2.tigertech; t=1664731682; bh=vebr4ERgzlUaty5616k3+5lRDnQd/h+xJSzmmrxEBGA=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=BPaXAUy8fs4dwDOLWEh9jIhUTukUndqLv5OfBRp6UuwpU8tZSkEdZP4utGDqM0iIX QDqsxXEDNbqU5tQNfNDUSALY96neJpKi8hoZIf4W9EfqqfEWdR6W582EEKGX300Kl0 HndMQS2QSaY7nbCL5d7zFJT4vBQOfKWx1J/BYbfw=
X-Quarantine-ID: <soXIThF7w8xU>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from [] (unknown []) (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 ESMTPSA id 4MgWBp0tpWz1pMkJ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 10:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 13:28:00 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.3.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <03ECE46E909EDAA67FC4F2EC@JcK-HP5>
From: Joel Halpern <>
In-Reply-To: <03ECE46E909EDAA67FC4F2EC@JcK-HP5>
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: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 17:28:09 -0000

When I was / am in leadership roles, I consider that I am not permitted 
to block email from any IETF participants.  (Having said that, it is not 
written down and other people may have different understandings.)



On 10/2/2022 12:59 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 14:31 +1100 Lloyd W
> <> wrote:
>>> On 2 Oct 2022, at 00:57, Rob Sayre <> wrote:
>>> Fully agree. I have a list of people I mute, and that works
>>> for me.
>> Maybe the IESG, IAB, wg chairs and other responsible people
>> should compare notes on who they're each muting and filtering
>> - and why.
> Lloyd, I suggest that, if that group of people, but especially
> the IESG, start muting those whose messages they don't like
> --for any reason-- we go rapidly down the slippery slope toward
> having no opinions count that don't agree with the preferences
> of those in "the leadership". There may well be extreme cases,
> but that is what all of the other mechanisms that have been
> discussed, ultimately leading up to BCP 83, are about.
> Otherwise and independent of the wishes of the allegedly
> problematic author, the rest of us need to have the right to
> presume that the IESG (in particular) is hearing the voices of
> everyone in the community who might be expressing an opinion
> about a matter relevant to the IETF.
> If that sounds like I think a certain amount of abuse-tolerance
> goes with those roles when people volunteer for them _and_ that
> Nomcoms should consider observed low tolerance for criticism as
> disqualifying for AD (and some other) roles), well, yes.
> What decisions you, Rob, or myself might make about who or what
> to filter; messages we do or do not care to read carefully and
> in their entirity; etc., is another matter entirely: none of us
> have the responsibility to evaluate community consensus and do
> that fairly.
> And, again, if their perception is that the abuse and/or
> disruption level has gotten high enough that neither they nor
> anyone else should need to put up with more of it, that is what
> BCP 83 is about.
>     best,
>      john