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

Eric Rescorla <> Sun, 02 October 2022 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE8B6C14F727 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 JX0vX4nVDGdW for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (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 5020EC14CF04 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 11:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id p202so6725094iod.6 for <>; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 11:15:13 -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=kKBxvVJzDAhlWGNrw5FGmc1K1Jpq5M4jGc0mMFcnGBI=; b=tmFCvY83h8wMNCrtVwot7xIJtgHJvHowcivXqA4D34e7AmN+dMI/a6Ra2raaAHhb/E UzHqyVlUfMYIHYs1IPMB0XwLvDH4jEbYeTKMOsDnwS3Kfmw9hHwu3EWS35WCxV7UhUvk MtiDn7AZMEj8VteSxaarAhWDcTDx2Zee8+aEycEltS213cE/XGtQ5/5lC2r0RMnm0SHO TMYcUp2mj0hTaAVZT1NrQaTqa50Pd/fQmaV0t05Y6idGTdVttudng+Oe+KLgapFkca1f MWizNYWDzAsK0dS1GwVquNF3V4vyBF8TzdgkWg7z+B+kVm3dbC9neZwM2ugzIkXT4PNV qM4Q==
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=kKBxvVJzDAhlWGNrw5FGmc1K1Jpq5M4jGc0mMFcnGBI=; b=hmFK4QYCHHvNhEfbF/caUsDHCQDu5VjMuPCZhDS17Jgbn1k3MFhuCDL6eiDgaxVO7R WjkajkcJav+oECv0a/wG06dUbeDmF/VbsW5jVU04TIJi0mtTfKEyv24LaSjsLkN8QKX0 EDy7wkk+h2Gp352nuSSP7/xurPSeLCJ/40AirJj9oqHP2eMVuyWCYkm1uTUY3RmnY52A 3PFCciIK4kpoClI+jU8pn9MxuNBLYyNqyOwoAP5WodxMWx8QcPigjB/U3gTHojwXUbOV UKGQiNdX2m0atxFD74hdiuo6stFwY/nSjzeJSmJ1Jf4J6pRLKTi5kRqbidJCiuybhvzC y1Hw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2pbnpwtl3OiUv4/SUK1DHIqyIPxQeVVSYhER3Rax9rcxkx/Brm hZvqtlmD4MZsaconHarT9YAPmn4cB6FDFl7Q22SgR1wBgDumZA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4UMQOx2Ur0d3Uqu0RCPFup94dwJ4k0p0fqIgxMcF5D0SCx1DTs6hT/yPQGqD2uQtJL39saQNX87f/gz9dJuHc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:1483:b0:35a:886e:6de6 with SMTP id j3-20020a056638148300b0035a886e6de6mr8455117jak.86.1664734512620; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 11:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <3D4F4763DD0EBFB47798FA1E@JcK-HP5>
In-Reply-To: <3D4F4763DD0EBFB47798FA1E@JcK-HP5>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 11:14:36 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: John C Klensin <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004546b005ea11357d"
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 18:15:17 -0000

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 11:03 AM John C Klensin <> wrote:

> --On Sunday, 02 October, 2022 10:33 -0700 Eric Rescorla
> <> wrote:
> >...
> > In particular, my experience is that it's far earlier to
> > address misbehavior early on with smaller interventions than
> > to wait until there is a long pattern of misbehavior and then
> > ban
> > someone. Nominally, we do have such mechanisms (SAA, etc.)
> > but, they have proven so difficult to apply that the nominally
> > last resort of the PR Action instead becomes in practice the
> > only resort in practice.
> Based on observations in recent months, I have somewhat more
> confidence in the SAA mechanism than you do although I would
> have agreed with you a couple of years ago,   As I said earlier
> today, I'm concerned about their perceptions of what they can or
> should do when the smaller and more private interventions (even
> publicly suspending someone from a particular list for a short
> time) fail, but a small bit of tuning would fix that.
> Situations in which all of the discretion --about whether to act
> and how-- is vested in a single WG chair or list maintainer
> without obligations to consult, e.g., either a co-chair or AD,
> may be another matter.   Without criticizing anyone, I tend to
> not trust any one person's judgment (including my own) in
> isolation or without consultation, especially if they perceive
> themselves as being abused.

Do you have some mechanisms in mind or are you merely speaking
in the abstract?

For instance, RFC 3934 explicitly requires the approval of the AD for
posting rights removal,
even for 30 days. Moreover, such a decision is appealable.