Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG

John C Klensin <> Tue, 11 October 2022 16:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C544C14CF0D for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:52:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jc90hhhTUHwz for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB554C14CF19 for <>; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1oiITx-000KeZ-5A; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:51:53 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:51:47 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: S Moonesamy <>,
Message-ID: <F7D30295F215065F0FB845C4@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <E07D908383FCC3EF63B6E49F@PSB> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Question for the IESG
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, 11 Oct 2022 16:52:00 -0000

--On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 07:54 -0700 S Moonesamy
<> wrote:

> Hi John,
> At 03:02 PM 06-10-2022, John C Klensin wrote:
>> I am asking because, while I think parts of it have been very
>> helpful and should be considered going forward, I am probably
>> at least as sick of the scale and tone of some of the
>> discussion as I infer at least some IESG members are. I also
>> agree with those who have suggested that parts of the
>> discussion itself have been at least as unpleasant, divisive,
>> and disruptive than anything Dan (or anyone else, at least
>> anyone not in the leadership) could manage on their own.
>> I'm trying to lay the foundation for a way forward that is
>> more closely focused on the rather specific criteria that I
>> understand (and have understood since 2003-2004) BCP 83 to be
>> about.  Or, to put it differently to allow asking if a
>> PR-action against [removed] is the right decision whether or
>> not the IESG wrote the optimal description of why action
>> should be taken and why.
> I have read the various comments on the thread.  The topics
> are, to put it mildly, quite controversial.
> I looked up the definition of the word "censorship".  The
> American Library Association defines the "censorship" as "the
> suppression of ideas and information that some individuals,
> groups, or government officials find objectionable or
> dangerous".  It is the first time, if I am not mistaken, that
> a draft was removed from the I-D public repository.  The
> removal is not compliant with BCP 83.
> BCP 83 is not listed in the "Note Well".  That does not negate
> the fact that it is part of the IETF statute book.  The
> criteria set in 2004 in that BCP is open to interpretation.
> There is a barrier to prevent misuse; the BCP requires an Area
> Director to make a judgement call.  The BCP includes an avenue
> to anyone who wants to contest the "PR-action", i.e. the
> appeals process.
> BCP 83 lists the following case: a participant has engaged in
> what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the
> consensus-driven process.  That is different from some of the
> points raised in the sub-threads (on this mailing list).

Your analysis above, some of the text in BCP 83, and memories of
the discussion when RFC 3683 was adopted and published, are why
I have been trying to focus on disruptive effects and level and
duration of disruption rather than language used, hurt feelings,
or perceived incorrect or antisocial attitudes of the
participant/offender.  That does not make any of those other
types of issues less significant or harmful, it just suggests
that BCP 83, as it now stands, may be a mismatch to the problems
as described in the IESG statement and other comments and hence
not the appropriate instrument.  It may also be that some of the
point you consider different (fwiw, I probably agree) are
symptoms of that mismatch.

> I am a bit curious about whether you will receive a reply to
> the question.

Assuming you mean a reply from the IESG (as distinct from
comments by others), as am I.  

I hope I am wrong.  However, as we move into the last week of
the Last Call window, I am beginning to assume that I will not
receive one before that window closes.  That would leave those
of us who support a PR-action but not some or all of the
justification in the IESG announcement for applying BCP 83 in
the difficult position of having to decide whether formally
withdrawing our support move would be effective enough to be
appropriate.  Especially if we do not do so, it would also leave
the IESG in the awkward position of having to interpret rather
ambiguous input and leave them even more open to an accusation
that has, I believe, been made several times already, i.e., that
they have already made up their minds and that this action will
go through either independent of the Last Call comments or
unless there is very large scale and completely unambiguous
opposition to it.

>From my perspective, that is not a happy situation for the IESG,
the community, or even for Dan (not that the purpose of this
effort is to make him happy at this point).