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

Abdussalam Baryun <> Wed, 05 October 2022 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3CEEC14CE3E for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2022 02:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 hNWPN-L6Xfpa for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2022 02:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) (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 4044BC14CE36 for <>; Wed, 5 Oct 2022 02:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id n12so5450117wrp.10 for <>; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 02:28:20 -0700 (PDT)
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:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=h3Ns6zpwzuIHlFC64IqnQpdH04wdOnJlf6dDLgvqgFk=; b=pbJBaIQolC0ZLoPOc/l6H5BuHutKvpWCkSFEySqsc1rAJS0JRCnIKgo1ATLDVcJnxj tiQolWYbr3HFAq9sQY/2tkhbxVM0CvKm9rLX0TFJ2mUd4J9kra2tRg4auNCNBXgOCUuK 2kMuMC1+5nbbS2ejYDYasfs/PIapcqZg99yi/44w1eO6Y8/LH+XfjnFgHuTekbmKyzjF cXNRmaXjskruDWUlCwVM5lRk5h2u5BPsR7Bmu4+13RLWA9ro90UF6XYWFC4MX4dA1qZV wIq6z+MRTaz5bqm3n09LdEmWQsFIP0JZJhBcqHAiETPf2LWY+Jj39hKyEdis11s7gVec s1lg==
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; bh=h3Ns6zpwzuIHlFC64IqnQpdH04wdOnJlf6dDLgvqgFk=; b=knUW+TvwYqRxQqtoJe0LhBKVRwglRDL8qxN61b5BiiDe8cwKl1VfeTqsgr795MGhLz d8hS4mMfodlNO6FbpeaY99wwGYK3xAsOKg/QFQ52MF1v7kkkox1vXuNvhvPqv1DdBoQo xAubf0prJxU8eBpBqvbTAH9q/NvjnOQki1ZwSZqP84u5WXSqyXwn/ZuaeAZI6a8oj0kr VSx7HaZ1CF8WfDsabpbCYfQ9Mg36BgElDHP/1yfufZbb4AjAtiw/y/7rixNTLXDtCH8e vdSiwUNqQfQV8NVPLVFNoCY2sW/KoSdTHy93uSPCn4DoDaJAtUQThPFAU1zk5Rl5gTWO wuBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0IrCMa+SaytDF/igb4UmIJdWAt9Bm715V5TPxxwwb7Wfbl7D/5 YvBn25NL5QGfzejwQvrAVYjTR8sOespt5dZZBA4/EeboMNQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4XAMWR1CPSVhU+d9P1A6gUPgrJEUMR+Q5BEAn+8mvKM7A39wiZKp/2MHdA2ZnuHPAY69eszHtVtqlGcDy033A=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:e491:0:b0:22e:4483:a8b5 with SMTP id i17-20020adfe491000000b0022e4483a8b5mr7764601wrm.497.1664962098037; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 02:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 11:32:41 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Keith Moore <>
Cc: Ted Lemon <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006b096305ea46325f"
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 09:28:20 -0000

On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 1:15 AM Keith Moore <>

> On 10/4/22 19:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
> > I think there is no point in continuing to engage in discussion here.
> > It’s pretty clear what the consensus is. Its pretty clear that Keith
> > will reply to each message here. Keith is one person. I expect that
> > the IESG will count his hundred messages as a single objection, not a
> > hundred. I appreciate that he wants to participate in this decision,
> > and he has a right to do so. But we don’t need to argue with him—the
> > IESG knows how to evaluate consensus, and our continued engagement
> > should not affect this process.
> Deciding whether to abuse someone should not be a consensus process.
> The action is not abuse if we see it from the IETF regulations, but to
have a solution, do you think this organisation has no regulations? You
need to find a proof that the action is wrong from IETF RFCs or
regulations. Your respond is not solving the *real problem* so it does
happen again and again for more years in future.

I think the real problem is not the attack on one individual (that is a
respond not attack), nor is it that the attacker is in power (who is in
power should react to make progress), but *the problem* is : that there are
many participants are feeling bad (they have private-complains and want
works/discussions to progress without many individuals leaving the
community) of such behavior in IETF, and there are few happy with such
behavior, the IESG as leader has to respond to such request from community
to solve *the problem*, the IESG tried alot with the individual but no
change for two years, IESG has used no power to attack for two years. Now
we need to have the respond from the community.