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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Mon, 03 October 2022 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E4DC14F613 for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 07:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 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, 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] 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 1i1dBLYJaM9s for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 07:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (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 A2AE5C1524AF for <>; Mon, 3 Oct 2022 07:20:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id w10so1906278edd.4 for <>; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 07:20:19 -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=lBGWc/MIc7bj6+o+ICiNDNDja15pnuKUDgoIx56gQrQ=; b=XbHxKjG3/UUpM3fziYsKJjsh4p9+q/DWbANp9jqPIFbQk4dfTRh+tH5LYTmKsSb08e gBpzARxPutRNOuyaBIJ36K3GT8003sF7/NZtq+GiYfCVq47rtJoLMQAwhG7JAWat49ZL 5s91D4fXXYuxUYXQa2UiHyFQl+5WomOvpNPWeYRltljhBlG82p1u7qzQZ7jxrST/Ppwg N9pKNHgeRNs+zfBCUncEKbpgOV6e56a13s6sSfAtXWX1/785hDFlgO+gRnI9fqSOOA8W 51G+TdlCgXPJbitLfibha2AHYpXp5XJwff1z3jrBxZ9Y9WB7q5H+fMbr2J5gjttKlV/F 8G7g==
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=lBGWc/MIc7bj6+o+ICiNDNDja15pnuKUDgoIx56gQrQ=; b=vccOw+wwwpAPheeFUZy45gZRVJADDuGL6FKcCynfr4qE1UW6/yFTY+lJ7Vj5s8sTXY 9oQ7jRlZaqRoUQ6J97HhDB8X0uXRvjYVoBbv4oJpZGWlA4P0LVBAhmiWJP5SuWowaf4U gfiupKyCkxMVHn7kG9kd3dDGvXXOetS6tvnpELrujm/jpcZddTTsmsD4fIbxbh7Aewns FmwZqUnJ4J1EpbfFytx71i6wT8Adc5GeZVkkfYQ2qkP9u+RW3CwyuasY7fgeAXAnsxwi S8crTZlvB4RNEA7zOoTGyKuPzeCQwiaR7idWAkx9XX5s7pMw6ixCltFWaRefy2KKlUoT gcLQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1C35+fhWZCkHpOBcl2oKDdzdFPTJ87hdhCoyRlVtUAgP58qOiI 92r1m4HmvtRvYvYNWoRwgWTo8qP2zMkmS68tScg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM70O/yUHebSe4qGlvB7xMqum7/+LYNk0pD0o/cav2hUpSQn+JEuqdeSJVD8SwMPKn3U8anb2n08VJUXDqG2o7s=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1bc4:b0:458:ff47:3cd5 with SMTP id ch4-20020a0564021bc400b00458ff473cd5mr4329333edb.402.1664806817585; Mon, 03 Oct 2022 07:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2022 10:20:05 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Keith Moore <>
Cc: Adam Roach <>, Ted Lemon <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fb5d7b05ea220a8f"
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 14:20:31 -0000

On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 9:24 PM Keith Moore <>

> On 10/2/22 21:16, Timothy Mcsweeney wrote:
> > I have less trust now too, but for a completely different reason.  The
> originating email to this thread states that the IESG has already formed an
> opinion, (Dan is bad) thereby tainting the results of the poll, even if
> only subconsciously, so that those who may want to be seen in a favorable
> light by the IESG would naturally back up their previously expoused
> decision and respond accordingly.
> >
> > Where the originating email goes on to describe that the IESG does not
> like to be rebuffed with communication that can be considered both
> > antagonistic and hostile, it puts the poll responder on notice to get in
> line.
> +1.
> 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 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.