That's true. It's equally true that not every case of suggesting someone needs to do additional research to understand the current state of things is such a strategy.
In this case, at least as I understand it, the OP wants some kind of absolute, guaranteed mechanism for indicating a domain is never legitimately used in email and is complaining that the RFC 9091 definition for a non-existent domain doesn't fulfill the criteria for that. On this we agree. It doesn't. It was never intended to. I don't understand what you are doing, but I'm sure you are doing it wrong is not a particularly good argumentative approach either. I completely agree that "we've discussed that before, go read the archives" can and is used to shut down discussion in the IETF, but that doesn't mean it's always the wrong answer. Scott K Scott K On December 18, 2021 9:06:12 PM UTC, Phillip Hallam-Baker <ph...@hallambaker.com> wrote: >Accusing other people of disagreeing with you because they fail to >understand your position and that they would agree with you if only they >did their research is a rather aggressive move. > >It is the constant refrain of the coinsplainer community. > >If your goal is to preserve the status quo without actually defending your >position, telling people that it is incumbent on them to find the arguments >against their proposal and agree with them does the trick. > > >We do need a better way to track architectural arguments so that they do >not get lost. There is another form of this particular pathology which hit >us with the DNS CAA record which I proposed before the DigiNotar attack, >became an RFC but nobody took any notice and then a few years later, a new >issue came up and we ended up with a CABForum mandate to deploy. > >I never considered CAA perfect, it was a compromise between a set of rather >ugly constraints imposed by DNS DNS-ing. By the time we got round to the >BIS, I had forgotten the rationale for the compromises. So we changed them. >And then spent three years in a set of stepwise refinements that brought us >back to the starting point because DNS is still DNS-ing and even harder. > > > >On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 3:44 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> Okay. I didn't mention the fence as an endorsement of his personality or >> politics. Not sure why that's relevant. >> >> Generally, I think arguing that something is wrong and should be changed >> without understanding why it's the way it is isn't a great way to go. >> >> Scott K >> >> On December 18, 2021 5:50:52 PM UTC, Phillip Hallam-Baker < >> ph...@hallambaker.com> wrote: >> >Anyone raising 'Chesterton's Fence' sets my teeth on edge. >> > >> >There is a longstanding field of political engagement called Agenda Denial >> >that deals with winning arguments they cannot possibly win by making sure >> >the argument is never made. >> > >> >It is never the right time, and never will be. >> > >> >There will always be something that must be done first. >> > >> >The people raising the issue have raised it in the wrong way. >> > >> >The issue needs more study. >> > >> >G. K. Chesterton was a rather unpleasant chap. Like most of the English >> >establishment of the time, his goal was to avoid sharing any of the wealth >> >of Empire with the undeserving masses who created/looted it. >> > >> >I strongly caution against anyone attempting to raise his standard in a >> >technical discussion. >> > >> > >> >On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 7:01 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >> >wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On December 17, 2021 11:26:38 PM UTC, Douglas Foster < >> >> dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> .. >> >> >A year after raising my concerns, I am still trying to get a >> collaborative >> >> >discussion started about what the optimal test looks like. In a >> >> >collaborative discussion, those who are happy with the status quo >> convince >> >> >the skeptics to come on board, listen to their concerns, acknowledge >> them, >> >> >and do what they can to accommodate those concerns so that consensus >> can >> >> be >> >> >achieved. I am willing to be convinced, but I am skeptical and I am >> >> >looking for some collaboration. >> >> > >> >> It may be that this is a cultural issue then. In the IETF, where there >> is >> >> an established consensus (rough or not), the burden is on those seeking >> to >> >> overturn the consensus to convince people. If you think about it, if a >> >> working group were obligated to rehash things whenever new people show >> up, >> >> it would be difficult to accomplish anything in an open environment >> where >> >> new people can show up anytime. >> >> >> >> I suspect you might have more luck if you first consulted Chesterton's >> >> Fence. I think you'd have more luck with questions about why things are >> >> the way they are than immediate assertions that they are wrong. >> >> >> >> Scott K >> >> >> >> P.S. At least as I understand it. I'm relatively new too. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> dmarc mailing list >> >> dmarc@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> dmarc@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
