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

Rob Sayre <> Sun, 02 October 2022 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F8AC14F724 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.105 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1mya5BbhK1HP for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::533]) (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 0AC8CC14F693 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e18so12403268edj.3 for <>; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:07:21 -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=EwgTODre5mqwfXV5cT19j3zuqXUQB0DM31DfP58VijY=; b=OitAJbK2QFhchzO/e1LSP/kQUVCHv08J/sn8L7IAPv+puI/FjH+pgcn50bQaYNaHmc W2f/htOKtdzVpNdWdzPWEdMeoIf3wZ88XP6XrquEC+9dnXD11XT4RXgf0kdeJVfxqxm1 k/8PHtWBraFxwGGfyGk3vcxOouO2QhwPXG70wacRZmK7/284ZVmQwdulG2QBZLuaxiX3 WCT2VumJU+0Fhmn4yv075fuiAi6RHsBerzLdRELOo5bpm5MUm3kPSocndHTjZMhA6sXp TIFzNkDePiNRcCaFvS1ZPabjaoTLstYxcY56Tlt6191mvDlr59DS3rFrzUnsfX/mZNQb Fsqw==
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=EwgTODre5mqwfXV5cT19j3zuqXUQB0DM31DfP58VijY=; b=VeQMojn7wytBTF0gLJi4WtXu0qlmNcI7fnc6fREPIXuThR9rbTk+eojB/PU78qEbcz NSsZ0VY0UqrbxOZwpgLkVYPV/jeJCBYp9VVv/L2nkn663axF8ygBrWhqwVpSfAql+keC k3amSy4RVOkBZihvDtxjmJ2BwaRiAGVVc4QiwEAZEnTS1+v3N9ql53BNfpg0S+YE5FYi 1dVwwUWyUA4bJMpL6+GWaOuTYZZeaV5qNpEhZJZgEYc/0ryeMjZDGC+K0DDYRUBkjC3P LVzo8nJVQ9CiGKY1BocnEnkW0qtPVO86X2IOm0lijxfanunCZCbi5mJeHi0qGeHiWqq7 Xe0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2lRkURrqBki79d7pYzWTT7UKgXT/tvx0s4roMteZvCfocrEqul Q5mEfMSO3goc0GdQYWhbICgXO+ybLnpcnC4K60g=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7mfR2v1onW5POioyUJ0kbdlBtsMm22NOB7wpqQ3EMZN4+lsApkvbhpMrDN78nFx52XmfGY8ZZOpKItZdUDDeA=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:c31b:0:b0:458:cc93:8000 with SMTP id a27-20020a50c31b000000b00458cc938000mr5960237edb.264.1664752039984; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Rob Sayre <>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:07:08 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Cc: Keith Moore <>, Ted Lemon <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb835505ea1549e7"
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 23:07:25 -0000

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 3:49 PM Adam Roach <> wrote:

> To be clear, they're not unrelated concepts; they're just not the same
> thing: unpopular opinions can become disruptive behavior when consensus
> is declared, those opinions are properly determined to be "in the
> rough," and their proponents insist on re-litigating those issues
> anyway.

Correct. I just experienced a fairly contentious discussion along those

I got most of what I had been arguing for, but also declared myself "in the
rough" in the end.

> That kind of behavior blocks progress. (Did the person who
> called consensus get it wrong? That's always possible, and that's why we
> have an appeals process. I want to be clear that appeals are not the
> same thing as repeatedly attempting to re-litigate closed issues in the
> same forum.)

This part doesn't matter. If the idea is really bad, it will just fail. Sit
back and watch.

> But in many ways, none of that is really applicable here.


> . It's about whether we tolerate that kind of unfettered
> jackassery on our mailing lists, regardless of the opinions they express.

Yep. The objection is not really about expression, but about time wasted.
It's about entitlement, and the insistence that people listen to you.