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

Keith Moore <> Fri, 07 October 2022 20:38 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B829C14F75F for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 S0tNyjaVY52k for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:38:49 -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 142D8C14F737 for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 13:38:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F64320069B for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 16:38:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:38:44 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding: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=fm3; t=1665175123; x=1665261523; bh=W SYZ9BKZxlW165L/XEli4K9PRkfgYnHOrn9NZl6q6CU=; b=fBdcJtlsK3QnW7/ri zJy4ZTA5acMlbkSg2zL6ljS7MG6sOdEEUnuPT0xK2mqzJFRtpAOVQFQWI+VlfhI/ 3hNJzZFfWUP8duK/sKyU1ItDH1nJQCnP4avo10I41DjSSaQ3exrOEIbnlI9bUfiW H8x97pbpBwon9/D+plmMuvOSeaH/NA+gdU9YMZp5Rm1z2Z8bqpderxbbXQyBNI+E nEezbg6MdeG+voYij2i9P3N266Vj7HxLigwI5+CP2wEMFpDR+G3ssBFNw63R87f6 0m9BRVBjw4hf0i4+CL3IfRJCTsYLSFAGXrNZkTjq9jnxnx8DOA8u19yQLPKIOYn9 SzR2A==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:U45AYxqsdhgXpN9rtTu_wjg7nzuKloCom90L0wZBMvtr54rCBFkhsA> <xme:U45AYzq_FIXftnkbdps0peKMnO8vKrDi10ouNSHMstLaSS9RqRqjYX9PGiJYdkQTa 5rWV4yAn1u-aw>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:U45AY-Pfe9qe1932C5RMw2c90zX_ptIefO6Om4xqYAe656nAupQkbWi3jMt42x5jS1YuiD6CV78Id2ptZAWkRJzyXuzAzPt0EYRvfAZpDvG_oAxGZePYwQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeeijedgudehfecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvfhfhjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepfedtvdelie ejveekjefhueduheeviefhjeefvdfgudfhfffhudduudefgefgteevnecuvehluhhsthgv rhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifoh hrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:U45AY86xC9anR-hYOGXDER4YpJfcp-mq8Sdoswok8zFKkmVP8IsdsQ> <xmx:U45AYw6N5W58KY7ZIkjF2X_TXSnNM3ErMjbAkmaugMYOJLu-OD4wxw> <xmx:U45AY0g_RiI4ewFcSsH8TMW3fKCQjlXx0iV5DobN89nNaMSM8OgdbA> <xmx:U45AYyHAQm4F946Gf1WiQ8m_n7auPTgW_2xRTMTssHqM5wRkhbLkZQ>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA for <>; Fri, 7 Oct 2022 16:38:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:38:42 -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: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <DD29063A41A7DEA374F8E9E4@PSB> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 20:38:53 -0000

On 10/7/22 15:37, Joel Halpern wrote:

> And, as occurred in this case, they should be talked to about whether 
> they understand the problem and are willing to change their behavior.  
> If not, and if they demonstrate they are unwilling to modify their 
> behavior, then we as a community are obliged to take explicit steps to 
> prevent the bad behavior. 

While I certainly support the idea of privately consulting with an 
individual who is accused of inappropriate behavior before taking 
action, there are some problems with that, or maybe holes in the 
process.   One is a lack of transparency.   IESG may claim that they've 
done so, but we don't know what was said, how clearly it was said, what 
threats were made, or whether there was any truth or validity at all to 
whatever accusations were made at the time.   We have no reason to 
accept IESG's claim as valid on its face, nor should we assume that they 
provided any real support for their claims of inappropriate behavior, as 
indeed, they have not done in this Last Call (IMO).

I don't claim that this is an easy problem to solve, because part of the 
point of such conversations is to try to resolve the perceived issue 
without exposing the accused to unnecessary embarrassment if the problem 
can be easily resolved.   In the case of some simple misunderstanding 
that can be cleared up, why air any of the dirty laundry?   But the 
overall progression from "hey, could we talk to you about something?" to 
"ok, we're going to formally invoke process to revoke your posting 
rights", and the appropriate kind of communication and transparency of 
each step, seem unclear.