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

Keith Moore <> Tue, 04 October 2022 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9909CC1524A4 for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:37:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.905
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.905 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_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 T_3u2S2-yceo for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:37:25 -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 67B04C14F73B for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A7F5C012F for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:37:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:37:24 -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=1664915844; x=1665002244; bh=Xs06tKZZrOsffejRzg1jp/veeqk3 xVb/oS1WKC2DR+c=; b=DrOO01tI/CnQNtxxuci5P7u+FOTGdfbSDdREl+0lpgA5 aBY/9QX8cOWn1z8u67MfJ+OhMDNCGhMF3vee0Kd6rTnD4jg19Qd8bEkE5YE+Y4Sw 6p+9E8zy4+h1bddpnlDNF7YQ7/9zyxM/rUdq8Uu2+AVLEl+tkNbN7SqHJEtmzBkj nXycWNHwKiqwWNfXXDpOh4morbLh/n/iWvolffelA8ozppbthEmDdHSJuQSYFtci 26+OdQDoVHLKiIFtsaikSeb/k5DJT5PdsXks3sAEHNUbsh0gN5wjgnSqajpIGxWS U5je0CtJTFMBHXASgkGi1FPfoFkrKxmFfhevsx5Atg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:g5k8YwlWr2j0eZanXCtiPZ0kkpfeoN2IWvGEaHrQYIBPEqu_DEo4PQ> <xme:g5k8Y_3TNYDOHazeFNqhmVmK86Bze4UeL1Xz-r5MQqFrDmwQAo51h4Ya17eUhl6cQ 0REjpIuND30Sw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:g5k8Y-ro_L2NhswUF2AQA43bSwpA3zNce5atKZAM-NMYcpNzoh6pjvjHoBVnb30fMMkDddIwgccoCsUlNidP2ZRBczxtu9z6ESRWNdlyu-So6I-9iarIuA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeiuddgudehudcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptgfkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjsegrtd erredtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehfeduvdeggf efveeiiefggeeludefjeduieetledugeefffelffevieffkeeiffenucevlhhushhtvghr ufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorh hkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:g5k8Y8nTjAaonWJmbGBPpvAmfl-X3iGnGAbA51pX8KXagzLcCnZ67A> <xmx:g5k8Y-2GzBcUIdby2YVRMs_gSOoLnU6tCIJsZ8u2I4cnl0YOQ82ygQ> <xmx:g5k8Yzv9sEwucTU7bNoCWsxaacj4owGq3UIe3Cl8QcyfLrKjcXvwIA> <xmx:hJk8Y_AYp_caI8K-Fo2S0F6jGWeJw5ODLSqM6M3FCSTyD7iXWEgeXg>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 16:37:23 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------Haesv8Ns1QbV1HW1w0ctUwR7"
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:37:22 -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: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 20:37:29 -0000

On 10/4/22 16:06, Tom Beecher wrote:

>     and that many of Dan's
>     supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
>     personal attacks on himself or on the community.
> This feels like a problematic position to me. It seems like you are 
> saying that as long as someone *perceives* a comment to be a personal 
> "attack", they should be afforded complete license to respond in any 
> manner they so choose, without repercussion. This feels like a wordier 
> version of "Well he started it."
> Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position here.
I certainly acknowledge the potential problem.   But it's also 
problematic to say "it's okay for IESG to attack people, or to amplify 
people who insult/attack the IETF community, but not okay for people to 

In other words, who gets to get away with being a bully?

Really I think everybody has an obligation to try to keep from adding 
energy to such feedback loops.  But community leaders (especially IESG 
but also others in authority) have an even greater obligation to do that 
than ordinary participants, because the potential for harm is greater if 
someone in power is adding fuel to the fire.