Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required-04.txt

[Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>]

Sorry. It seemed to me that Ray misunderstood the point of this draft.
Clearly, correcting the draft to state ARIN's present policy that in-addr
is not required, is not what the authors intend. Obviously, it contradicts
the title.

I don't seen an ad hominem in the statement you quote. I presume I am
allowed to disagree with others. Especially, since I am not alone in the
position.

Further, it seems to be an attempt to renew a debate that we've been
having for 10 days. You should chastise the author who brought up this old
topic, not the person who is pointing out that it is an old topic.

However, if it were a new issue, I should be allowed to state my
disagreements to it, and to help clarify its meaning and implications.

Do we make judgements now without debating the issues? Or am I only
allowed to comment on one topic?

		--Dean

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Rob Austein wrote:

> At Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:48:12 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson wrote:
> >
> > The goal of this draft is to dictate a change in policy at ARIN and other
> > registry's.  The authors know about that in-addr is not required. They are
> > trying to change that.
>
> <hat wg-co-chair=on>
>
> Dean,
>
> Please cease and desist posting on this subject unless you have
> something genuinely new to say and can refrain from ad homina such as
> the above.  This is not a debating society; other people are entitled
> to disagree with you, and ad homina are inappropriate in any case.
>
> If this draft makes it as far as a last call and you still disagree
> with it, you will be entitled to state your case against it again,
> assuming you can do so politely.   Until then, please let other people
> work on this.
>
> --Rob
>
> </hat>
>


#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.