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

John C Klensin <> Fri, 28 October 2022 03:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 795D5C14CE32; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:40:15 -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 coaeu_xJSaKt; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:40:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B01FC14CE26; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 20:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1ooGE0-000Ks7-Ce; Thu, 27 Oct 2022 23:40:04 -0400
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2022 23:39:59 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Adam Roach <>, Pete Resnick <>
cc: Ted Lemon <>, Brian E Carpenter <>,, IETF Chair <>
Message-ID: <506C5C0B3BCC0996873C293E@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <E35A397E4DCDAD5D0BA33D9A@PSB> <> <40901823039A72E927E6387C@PSB> <> <5EE93148C706EEA966757077@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] Change of position: 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, 28 Oct 2022 03:40:15 -0000

--On Thursday, October 27, 2022 22:27 -0500 Adam Roach
<> wrote:

> On 10/27/2022 10:24 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> But, again, your suggestion and mine don't seem very different
>> in practice, especially if there are no further inappropriate
>> postings.

> I will reiterate my previous point about the unlikelihood of
> this outcome, given that there have been inappropriate
> postings by Dan in this thread itself.

I believe at least most of those posting preceded the messages
from Dan about what he now understood and would not repeat in
the future.  If there are exceptions since then (I don't recall
any but have found these threads someone overwhelming), I
believe they fall into the range in which there seems to be
considerable disagreement in the community about appropriateness
or lack thereof.

Your ability to predict the future may, of course, be better
than mine, but I believe we owe it to ourselves, as well as to
him, to try and let him try.  If doing so fails (i.e., produces
inappropriate postings as you predict), I think the best way to
evaluate the difference between my proposal and Pete's would be
to figure out how long it takes to invoke the PR-action and get
him off these lists.