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

Tom Beecher <> Tue, 04 October 2022 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A37DDC14F72D for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 C76qxEa6Cs6x for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2e]) (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 75291C14CE2B for <>; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 13:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 126so15839033vsi.10 for <>; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 13:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=MWxJ7ZKt6sRLoGb7D79IRlvMqMPEhW89npgRktOnqsw=; b=LoUtLsWIz2Suv3ozvHiKVvQVsG4pDtCiMcy88YyW90qJFwPZgRJhocvdgfE0e6strS y0kKZ2hl/Ga3QwBeOWZjMTbdzhzHH3iFUGdZvola5njjrzXXKY7AxOt/0PFdn7bLJWUp yiXwsujTF6zLzYjjbUfweqDJcnv2prxThZej+PR4rrL+5TeffrIW66uyFXBj7n+lpH9E /rY1jlPPZKBO5uomj0l9TDot/IgPgRoxYq9zfGJuDIjiRkSw2v9sB5lBJwbVogQGOBAU C4/yKZj+z/a3adaQivP9K1aIzh0bPIu7z7cW5atNAw9ksiAHhNirDlKBhwQVpUBT4sfp pWJQ==
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=MWxJ7ZKt6sRLoGb7D79IRlvMqMPEhW89npgRktOnqsw=; b=o0fCS+mP326hwENDZFXcvmQfQ2l+WuKZWLifkEGBaiOvEPNo7edz+Qy5p8mij1Gsan 0lUTM5CSjEUKBiRz2hKr8R1RVNbU1TuzPg49jUarJNSextsmPGCtgwvv8LSySeNA/ftN uRrpOwk+0TBZ5l90EPRi8IkOmpuvWc1JVL9ORTFU8OtVjc7Hn1W0JYRJHr6ViU76aJxW +bgT8i6pI9rWDb5ZSWTOI4VXV22w/DFaLGyltnl4cuGcaGnVg5nr1PFVL9951QIXMdbM PI7bUtrlhB1ibACK+O9cJRTFjILbJP+tGVuSURwNDKG3OgaD1xsIkgO8QlMpGGhTQQxT i+LA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1JSpvYHSwrrdYmke9nalFGkqBlKc5mcesMVDLnf+ZAwwaSOOte /DwLNtKr/vOy0e9S6UY1mwF6nrWBY/LIuvcf2THxDjNYxK5y1Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7wN5DSlhaWsnSBYnb0Ii9RnOjN6+AJ1AkkRSr4hUsTxMDSA86txpoTTdg00IVpoHHVc+XXaf/oV65Khq8o3Wc=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:50a2:b0:398:7a6e:249 with SMTP id bl34-20020a05610250a200b003987a6e0249mr12968945vsb.2.1664914004110; Tue, 04 Oct 2022 13:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Tom Beecher <>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 16:06:32 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Keith Moore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cc25b305ea3aff84"
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2022 20:06:49 -0000

> and that many of Dan's
> supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
> personal attacks on himself or on the community.

This feels like a problematic position to me. It seems like you are saying
that as long as someone *perceives* a comment to be a personal "attack",
they should be afforded complete license to respond in any manner they so
choose, without repercussion. This feels like a wordier version of "Well he
started it."

Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position here.

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:23 PM Keith Moore <>

> On 10/4/22 09:16, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
> > There have been repeated hints from various sides that the postings in
> > question (may) have been hurting the feelings of IETF participants (or
> > have been disturbing at least and clearly lacking respect for IETF
> > participants).
> With respect, I disagree that this is a valid reason for censoring this
> individual.  I also disagree that his postings were malicious or clearly
> lacking respect for IETF participants. What's also clear is that this
> effort is a personal attack on Dan, and that many of Dan's
> supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
> personal attacks on himself or on the community.   While everyone would
> do well to avoid resorting to ridicule out of anger at being attacked,
> that's an important part of the context that many people seem to be
> missing.
> Essentially, your argument amounts to an argument that it's okay for the
> IETF leadership to attack individuals whose opinions they do not like,
> or that it's okay for IETF leadership to amplify individuals whose
> opinions are offensive to some, and for defensible reasons.
> Keith
> --
> last-call mailing list