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

[Rob Austein <sra+dnsop@hactrn.net>]

At Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:03:46 -0500 (EST), Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> 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.

Loaded terminology (eg, "dictate") while speculating presumptively
about the motives and intentions of the draft's author.  See message
dated 27 Mar 2003 18:40:05 (terms like "culprit", "mislead", and so
forth while talking about another person posting to the same message
thread) for a more obvious example.

> I presume I am allowed to disagree with others. Especially, since I
> am not alone in the position.

Yes, you're allowed to disagree.  What you're not allowed to do is to
post essentially the same comment over and over again, or attack the
people proposing an idea that you happen to disagree with.

> 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.

Yes, the fact that you seem to be construing this as a continuation of
the last ten days worth of in-addr discussion is part of the reason
that I asked you to cease and desist.  Several people (including both
WG co-chairs) asked the draft's author to bring the draft back from
oblivion for discussion.  Part of the point of the draft is to say
that applications that break without the reverse tree should be fixed.

> 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.

As I said in my previous note: if you have something genuinely new to
say, go ahead, but please don't repeat the same "we should just get
rid of the reverse tree" comment you've been making for the last week
and a half, and please let other people have their say without
stomping all over them the way that you and Brad did to each other the
last time around.

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

No, and no, but please let other people have their say too, without
chasing folks away from the list.

I'm not that fond of the "debate" model for WG operations, it's much
too prone to nonterminating loops in which each participant feels that
he must have the last word.  What seems to work better is to write a
draft, give everybody a chance to state his or her view of whether the
draft is on the right track and how it might be improved (preferably
based on experience with running code), then see whether there's rough
consensus on what to do next with the draft.
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# To unsubscribe, send a message to <dnsop-request@cafax.se>.