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

Brian E Carpenter <> Mon, 03 October 2022 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084C9C14F740 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 13:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.11
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.11 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] 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 ddIlKuFveZRB for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 13:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 94D4DC14F732 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 13:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d24so10630704pls.4 for <>; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=AnZRoswV3UsYzKciYGfwbWjE9EdVSsZV8bFo6avTXsQ=; b=mUycTVkHifqzSBuie3XBBZl7R8Hq0isAE+Ow2ers6z/wcqnoPmNX65ho2zmJF8BBmf VaTYdekRvHzifxmfYpDXFeTeo9lN8TCbttmA8nD9+98xqBkLRblCnB5UhA89A9SKiT+W jlzTYb9GCLcmthtxUgD5qI2LVV8+lVhkfIu1fM7+D2FwwjvLNuamfUw6MDxSzBk6SQWb r2qm2rkDXaZwNrevx5vBPywBRqKFBIRzh7QnWYhEYc08ilulQDDCdJYSHZwH4Odxlsqv mAt+rnABxBeV+i+sq4giwJi+BIZpkqN/zQz1DNWxtjUq+Aw0UCBzXDgoFJusX5ebcFyF MaFA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=AnZRoswV3UsYzKciYGfwbWjE9EdVSsZV8bFo6avTXsQ=; b=MgyRE0xABcVgrbdbU8sK5NoUrTdn+luTnmYBDZV04VgBH9oNxcnBxAfmOU3f+2RSJX ZgVWY3e6NibZGYAEYtlMtAsvJ8dUQ34iNGiHGdQJYYA371zVk1UYoMLquW0LWHhkMS/K s5nxSgoxc4MSkj6M03PBFgB2IhaKkfvY5srgAWteuWtUYzuT6Ku2oftqNWZiOVR/Emb1 heucOVAju27hjYDF0jowi5tZhVFwLLmJF0lNhBeXk0dXicj3+6cd8rFU/fm/7WF8mNW6 OxuIiIroH5h4QTCnh1QoNHTrQv2AzQBYiKWKQt+/5Pa/j0Fpt8ZuQk1j95Vd+zGUxd7G 83sQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf2lId+NP3G18Y+oFEX1yZk/LQm4J6BgbJ4G8So1hyViJVyAJvgf qwtTdzYUErWWXl3+gP1N9MA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6hc2VAGv/NtYuyV+ApjoiIpqm1VKoaoZAYqZPawOll2s5lTQBoqXMnd5p4KRTdyPTvqk6XrQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:9046:b0:179:f884:7f82 with SMTP id w6-20020a170902904600b00179f8847f82mr23713412plz.157.1664827336843; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPV6:2406:e003:1124:9301:80b2:5c79:2266:e431? ([2406:e003:1124:9301:80b2:5c79:2266:e431]) by with ESMTPSA id j3-20020a170902da8300b00176ae5c0f38sm7607660plx.178.2022. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Oct 2022 13:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:02:10 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Keith Moore <>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Cc: Adam Roach <>, Ted Lemon <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 20:02:18 -0000

Keith, you wrote:

> Whether or not it's warranted, it's clearly a personal attack on Dan.

No. It's directed very explicitly at a particular pattern of behaviour
on some specific mailing lists. It doesn't say that he may no longer
contribute, say, to Security Area activities.


On 04-Oct-22 07:02, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 10/3/22 10:20, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>     In a normal Last Call, anyone is free to object without significant
>>     reprisal.    In this case, anyone can see that by objecting they'd be
>>     courting disfavor from those in power.   That's not a consensus call at
>>     all.
>> I don't agree with the premise.  Any Last Call is in essence a statement that the IESG is preparing to take some action it believes is appropriate and justified, and wants (or, if you prefer, is required) to test community consensus on that decision.  That could be a WG being chartered, a document approaching readiness for publication as an RFC, or a PR action for which supporting evidence appears to exist.  This is no different.
> I disagree.  Most of our Last Calls are about whether the community should endorse publication of a particular document. It's a big deal, and the stakes are often high, as people have often invested years of their work lives in writing such a document.   But usually the biggest consequence of the Last Call evaluation is whether the document becomes a consensus document or an informational or experimental one.   There's long been a strong sense from the community that IETF has an obligation to publish working group output in some form; that working groups, at least, should not labor for years and then have their labor discarded. (I generally agree.)
> This proposed action is different.  Whether or not it's warranted, it's clearly a personal attack on Dan.  IESG has made its intentions clear.   It isn't acting as any sort of neutral-ish party.  And I certainly feel like I'm putting my neck on the chopping block (metaphorically) by even discussing this PR-action without stating support for it.  I've received several private emails insisting that I'm wrong for stating an opinion about it because I'm "in the rough", as if we aren't supposed to think and speak for ourselves but instead fall in with the herd.
> I do believe and appreciate that IESG is following the prescribed process; that doesn't mean that I think it's wise or constructive or helpful to the community for IESG to try this.   I'm trying to reserve final judgment, though, until I finish a detailed review of all of the documents cited in the Last Call.
>> I also don't particularly care for the insinuation that there might be reprisals ("disfavor") if the community decides the IESG got it wrong.  If the consensus goes against this action, then we'll just end up having to figure out where we go from here.  That presumes a lack of integrity.  Were I to engage in such reprisals, I would expect to be recalled.
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Keith