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

Keith Moore <> Mon, 03 October 2022 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E303CC14F73E for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 18:24:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.608
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 IUE_TLRYcoS8 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 18:24:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12B2CC14F736 for <>; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 18:24:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B71832007E8; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 21:24:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 02 Oct 2022 21:24:17 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t=1664760256; x= 1664846656; bh=EtsJzdIBfpgKQJUdv29Vrd5zPDZGaNmb02wHdjMaANw=; b=o L0tTDprudzmK3Mnc73Y3rFTR1v6zX99pHaZv4PdZrusj/4656g3nh6p+hVA7a8cU FYvTBHtOtnVdMA9LU5AFvoXFuhAaumCrESOWflFm2RXEdHoL6Oz2X/LZgAhPeCoW ESv8yVuyrRLD9bSDpXAJzvMcJF73J7ZDarLSdL6V+wY0j+436HHYEJV+nMiZEZDk z3JzhnB565UWlPsIZFpmrN6hbNf7f4H9bIEdq5wKimaH29KQdSeOFlobeov06Lwb xLLjJ9sgkx0ZFuzyPaCJdT/Q0DRHxpU33VeFYq3/SkCA2oa/g5SOVgQ1dYV7bC+i HUkZ+suM72PZFqO2e6rqA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:wDk6Y_ZHycY3EGEhI6BTHnzs_9V6C28OZZI9hmPBm5lwzLqxiFvXMA> <xme:wDk6Y-bDGG0vIZwH22ighCoUajc8zB1iVEq9FS2AgZPrnAx1wULVbgZxCiSbL2lQr xPd5F6eDht2ZA>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:wDk6Yx9l9LaalO0nOVG_d9R3xNKNAho2F1qywXfHZLPvB5ueJTVyvXF1pYHtTwLEAxy1AG4prL_snlmJ6LIyhF3omUunnEne8ficc61GYSGih6XkJehzJw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvfedrfeehkedggeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepkfffgggfuffvvehfhfgjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghi thhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtoh hmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeuvdehheetfeduueejtdeludeigfevgffgudevveek uddvheevveegkeffvdejvdenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmh grihhlfhhrohhmpehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:wDk6Y1pUYNiY-jHv5pN17-Gq6k2Z9GN8eY3ZTbYcaylvJocQYDnKYg> <xmx:wDk6Y6qKCLhuzZUNTUJ12jrVj48BPuiAZKPRM5o3cI4k11ihNUKMCQ> <xmx:wDk6Y7Ri1slHf__7AmvKPD0j_4pdpSowJCH7D6mVeSPErZaIi_bEuw> <xmx:wDk6Y_DQJ-v9vjxANXAT0IqnRifRDTcINFB7J0ij4RN6V7JU-GBRuw>
Feedback-ID: i5d8c41f0:Fastmail
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 21:24:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 21:24:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Timothy Mcsweeney <>, Adam Roach <>, Ted Lemon <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 01:24:23 -0000

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.

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 

I'd counter that there's an obligation on everyone to object to abuse of 
power if that's what you sincerely believe is happening.   Even if, 
perhaps especially if, you're "in the rough".