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

David Schinazi <> Sun, 02 October 2022 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64916C14CF16 for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 17:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 pqP-ecEVJoNI for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 17:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a32]) (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 DBC57C14CF15 for <>; Sat, 1 Oct 2022 17:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id bj3so816399vkb.5 for <>; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 17:16:01 -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=/s2ljTGmBPiqEbNSXyjL0lgnDESOBhHEZggz+eOJEN0=; b=FEuTFjg8K/PTTbBa1c2JuYuOqJ0w52TiN9Cpu/ajdZp6DaRFT7sEUdIRec+xF1Urdh 4LoMXSpg0uYGzTOP+dLkhw9zKkdO+lxW/P5Gf6LzS18pw8MlO5n2qtH7u2al19HD1lJu yyvFirzz6li/6GUclG7GiWnDVMjehNd8ob4rhlxvS9YCtoAaRm7j6ubX7Az/4YyYau17 y19OmklZYADb+txizQcc0JtFDJ36Na970+5hN/y/JIl0KBxyjTHxd1O1BZV1aJGWbdDi 7T3S3G5E/OTg7ulpM4kqaxZrb9uLuaVa3r3gDoScdzS0xC3kHPKTALJJ0doB6ChAnOsK BJyA==
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=/s2ljTGmBPiqEbNSXyjL0lgnDESOBhHEZggz+eOJEN0=; b=F491ydvOtelnEmxvRlINS6Biu0KwTNwYbKl+7V5WD4BCkoG7I6lVLxjy2DYJ92i9Fy rbtDWNiP35qq/xowRVXlgCOJg/aHNNx/k7Ws3WgYYclVZ0q3jgEkymgQ3feDmKTIJwL5 Ts9w90utWbqhVjF1suDDvyuqZ+yr4Hrst3ziC59cl8mas/HSWzJMEGvbjRWsXX4rynZU h6a2IdbKfDait4pG5tjcBGIzQjdBkG6Slmhy/5je5YsQb9lT/CAuWjA+znmz01TMS1Zi sdr8SwQJ6gQf9s9hKROzN24DrMSaAYsJgxCPTjTrXG8yoX7C6uDJdU8XiXW8P6N2l1/1 uhcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0Y3LiFVhVgPQexMoqSa6Pg4xYNDoaxLC6/91Ov8WFNkvNLcyXf h87zyoCRWvklDAPs6kJsmAvs07reQflzvuIuwjZrYrLgpC8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7rYB5NTAz1ml2d6ZfNGJ6Qy/4o4LE1TenKUttMsBN/kTHIG7AxaX90NdRPppI4nKs2Y6ZU8crCCJJyQEKTo+4=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:998:b0:3a2:5ad1:de03 with SMTP id g24-20020a056122099800b003a25ad1de03mr6860697vkd.24.1664669760788; Sat, 01 Oct 2022 17:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Schinazi <>
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2022 17:15:49 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Timothy Mcsweeney <>
Cc: "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c29ff305ea022144"
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 00:16:06 -0000

Hi Tim, responses inline.

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 4:13 PM Timothy Mcsweeney <> wrote:

> OK Dave let's dig deeper,

I have to admit this isn't my favorite use of a Saturday, so I can't
promise I'll keep digging with you much deeper.

> The good news is that you didn't disagree with me when I said Dan's emails
> were not racist.

Silence and agreement are quite different. I'm choosing to stay out of that
particular debate.

> The rest inline.
> > On 10/01/2022 3:32 PM EDT David Schinazi <>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > I think you've inadvertently helped clarify what a "problematic email"
> is.
> > Let's take your email that I'm replying to as an example. The point
> > you're trying to make (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding) is
> > that you disagree about the posting rights action regarding Dan Harkins.
> Yes that's correct, notably on whether Dan Harkins has engaged in postings
> that are "unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject" in
> a manner disruptive enough to warrant this action.
> > But let's look at how you're making that point. You say:
> > <<Anyone who is actually upset about the "problematic emails" is either
> > to weak for a leadership position or has an underlying agenda.>>
> > I was upset by Dan's emails, so now you're accusing me of either being
> > weak, or being dishonest.
> Whoa whoa Dave, I didn't say you were dishonest!  Thats a bit of a bait
> and switch with my words sir.

My apologies for reading too much into "having an agenda".

> But since you bring it up and you said Dan's emails upset you, I'm sure
> you spoke up about it.  Lets check over on the terminology list, nope no
> Dave there[1].  Lets check on every one of those problem email threads, I'm
> sure you said something there....nope, no Dave there either.  Maybe they
> didn't really bother you.

You're again ascribing meaning to silence when there is none. As you can
imagine, I have a full-time job which keeps me quite busy so I am not able
to read or respond to every IETF email.

> Maybe you were right to use the word dishonest, idk.

If I were to interpret this statement as you accusing me of dishonesty,
would I be misunderstanding you?

> Why do you feel the need to belittle me here?
> I guess subconsciously I was trying to fit in, I've been picking it up
> here and there.  But I get so confused...Carsten calls me stupid and gets a
> thumbs up;  Masataka Ohta calls some one stupid and gets banned.  I'm just
> not sure who to belittle these days.

Oh that's an easy one to answer: no one. I would suggest you not belittle
anyone on IETF mailing lists.

> Then let's about this drink you're having at the pub. The way you repeat
> it
> > seems to indicate that you already know that this way of naming the
> > drink is offensive,
> Yeah, the guy next to me ordered a White Russian and I just about knocked
> him out I was so furious!!  Doesn't that guy know all Russians aren't
> white!  How dare he not know the litteral roots of the drink he ordered!
> I'm going to tell the manager how upset I am and see if I can get him
> kicked out.  But first I'm going to get all my friends together so we can
> all tell the manager, that way it will look like a huge issue and they will
> have to do something!
> > Some people on this list might
> > be of Irish descent, and might find it upsetting that you belittle a
> part of
> > their history where some of their family members might have lost their
> > lives.
> Not sure if you caught my last name but....whatever.  If I had family
> members that were burned to death I wouldn't call you inconsiderate for
> having a campfire.
> > So by this rhetoric flourish of yours, you're intentionally making people
> > feel bad by bringing bad hard memories.
> That was a poetic.  Eliot!  Where's Eliot?  There is a poet over here!
> If calling you a poet stirs up any hard memories, well, idk, I guess
> that's poetic justice.
> > There's no way that repeating this
> > drink name six times helps make your point that Dan Harkins should be
> > allowed to post on a mailing list.
> No no, that's not true.  The repitition is to help you remember.
>  Remember how ridiculous this whole thing is.
> > So yes, your email is problematic.
> There you go again with the labels.  Did you know that by labeling
> something you make it exclusive?  And being exclusive is not very
> inclusive.

Inclusivity doesn't need to apply to all. I am a happy member of multiple
groups that exclude rude people. Anyone can choose to not be rude. I choose
to not be around rude people.

> In the future, please attempt to make you points without intentional
> being rude,
> > disrespectful, or belittling. You'll find that people will listen to you
> > more.
> How did I do this time?

I don't think you've convinced anyone to change their opinion on the topic
of this thread. I see that you believe that a lot of what we're trying to
do here is ridiculous. That topic might even warrant some debate, but
antagonizing your correspondents rarely helps to convince them. Anyway, I
do hope you find hobbies that bring you more joy than performative
witticisms over email. Have a great rest of your weekend.