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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 03 October 2022 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB78DC1524DD for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.909
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.909 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_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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 nD9vWQFHYeTs for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:03:01 -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 B2104C1524D1 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 11:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C19A3200344; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 14:02:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:02:58 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc: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=1664820178; x=1664906578; bh=z2Jj1UW50yNk8h9FTbMRPz7RtNIx 2a1xmfOU95aQxBM=; b=iHhQHkw0EPq+j02BcdeYZOOV7ClggdXcIoVAR6X6E5fw ezen3C7TR19jA2BJj4FBchxGphrxzLJWf4VmaNwd5SQKGRF6UojwnfkH8oxsXI2y TPh5QPb6n6A/CwQ5uOva5RGlAw9M+nko/9k6ApQXQlm3tQF16TMPjtoYPCTZsCl1 K5S5Lf7Ib3ULxCslwdR8a8d0UwFbYatJFNo/awoRxO9sy/XFsStsM80kUeDmU/PQ EcLMhetpvJxCHMl1up+mfPLCwYAiP44aojV6VvkGEvl6V+qhm4qVqg4fTAGCWD6P Ncn74rBWSCX+NNmaqBBCpiZfgRa6Ix/tTM5XEsQ/1g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:0iM7Y0IOziV5w1qAxNDWud4zTNTWjrU6wvAhD8lITYZioivAML9JeQ> <xme:0iM7Y0J6WeJpOuBmuMQMFQT8MJnr3k4BZQ_fxfg5ghFpe0sOx40f_vvffmL4kWw26 j7JWIEgTq3gTg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:0iM7Y0uyKKw2tuPUPsv8GqdRe9hUmLtWtGl0jczUlRTl4NkNK0lzbpr48c5KP1Rp6_FKO2FjBbvb7xaDeU-D8Qvn7lVV7Bsi4obfTNxVzD0vBvXHeSE3yw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeehledguddulecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpegtkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjsegrtderredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghi thhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedtffdtvddvieefffeigffhtdduudetheeigeeviefg gfegvdekiefhheefudejteenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:0iM7Yxa4iomkGbhwIE6mao-CZauBiX1G5hQc8FEN03GNdspTPajIxA> <xmx:0iM7Y7bp_zVaFzYVagdtwtlwkaiEQelNuE2u2WBX0vXEfyp0NO5l_A> <xmx:0iM7Y9CinrI5NmwktBfZBZ-uFPQMJF6LqtIGfA8X0_tBxbGffIH5vw> <xmx:0iM7YyxwvEMMJziUYOBZspoSr7glV4S0B4Fw5EB7KTdvuseSiEA4lA>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 14:02:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------hjksmGBm80UD5mq0y4ckAY02"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:02:57 -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
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: Adam Roach <>, Ted Lemon <>,
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 18:03:05 -0000

On 10/3/22 10:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

>     In a normal Last Call, anyone is free to object without significant
>     reprisal.    In this case, anyone can see that by objecting they'd be
>     courting disfavor from those in power.   That's not a consensus
>     call at
>     all.
> I don't agree with the premise.  Any Last Call is in essence a 
> statement that the IESG is preparing to take some action it believes 
> is appropriate and justified, and wants (or, if you prefer, is 
> required) to test community consensus on that decision.  That could be 
> a WG being chartered, a document approaching readiness for publication 
> as an RFC, or a PR action for which supporting evidence appears to 
> exist.  This is no different.

I disagree.  Most of our Last Calls are about whether the community 
should endorse publication of a particular document. It's a big deal, 
and the stakes are often high, as people have often invested years of 
their work lives in writing such a document.   But usually the biggest 
consequence of the Last Call evaluation is whether the document becomes 
a consensus document or an informational or experimental one.   There's 
long been a strong sense from the community that IETF has an obligation 
to publish working group output in some form; that working groups, at 
least, should not labor for years and then have their labor discarded. 
(I generally agree.)

This proposed action is different.  Whether or not it's warranted, it's 
clearly a personal attack on Dan.  IESG has made its intentions clear.   
It isn't acting as any sort of neutral-ish party.  And I certainly feel 
like I'm putting my neck on the chopping block (metaphorically) by even 
discussing this PR-action without stating support for it.  I've received 
several private emails insisting that I'm wrong for stating an opinion 
about it because I'm "in the rough", as if we aren't supposed to think 
and speak for ourselves but instead fall in with the herd.

I do believe and appreciate that IESG is following the prescribed 
process; that doesn't mean that I think it's wise or constructive or 
helpful to the community for IESG to try this.   I'm trying to reserve 
final judgment, though, until I finish a detailed review of all of the 
documents cited in the Last Call.

> I also don't particularly care for the insinuation that there might be 
> reprisals ("disfavor") if the community decides the IESG got it 
> wrong.  If the consensus goes against this action, then we'll just end 
> up having to figure out where we go from here.  That presumes a lack 
> of integrity.  Were I to engage in such reprisals, I would expect to 
> be recalled.

Thanks for the clarification.