On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> but if others disagree with me, I will cheerfully include your
> suggestions.
It seems others disagree.
> (By the way, I appreciate that you are willing to comment on the
> draft, since you said that there is no way it could be modified to
> address your concerns. But also due to that statement by you, I
> believe we've been released from trying to address concerns you raise,
> since every attempt is apparently guaranteed to fail.)
Your failure to address concerns is up to you. Obviously, the draft CAN
be modified to address my concerns: Indeed, I wrote that modification in
draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status.
Rather, I don't believe __you__ will address the issues since it seems,
based on extended and repeated experiences, that your goal is to mislead
people about specific uses of reverse DNS, while simultaneously trying
to convince critics of the draft that their concerns have been addressed
and that discredited claims have been removed. Again and again the
presence of discredited claims has been shown; and again and again you
make trivial, gratuitous changes and report "all fixed!". But it isn't
fixed. 7+ years this has gone on. Some people are tired of it, but
getting tired doesn't mean anyone should give approval 'as is'.
> > major difference between our drafts: Your draft presents discredited
> > practices as credulous, while I provide the full context, including
> > the fact that these practices were discredited.
>
> I suppose you mean "credible";
You suppose wrongly. "Credulous" means "inclined to believe, especially
on thin evidence". By contrast, "Credible" means "trustworthy,
believable".
> The feedback that I've received so far is broadly that there are cases
> where using reverse mapping is a useful practice for them (although
> there are some who disagree with that, such as you).
Wrong again. I've never said that reverse mapping isn't useful. I even
wrote a draft on Reverse DNS Status. Your report of my opinion isn't
accurate, and is misleading.
I (and others) have just said that claims of improved trust and (some
few other assumptions) have been discredited. No one has long suggested
otherwise; it is a minority view, at best. Even the people supporting
your draft, usually don't think it says what it actually says; they are
MISLED by assurances. But once they are explicitly shown all the
statements in the draft, and they put everything together and see the
presence of the discredited claims, they agree with me and disagree with
you. In retrospect, your past assurances to remove discredited claims
hasn't been believable.
> As I've said before, this is not "my draft" but the working group's;
> I'm just editing it.
The group has repeatedly rejected the claims in the draft that "you just
edited" once it is detailed how the draft supports discredited claims.
Demonstrating the presence of the discredited claims sometimes takes
some effort to detail, but the group obviously doesn't support the
discredited claims you keep trying to work in [while simultaneously,
these last few years anyway, saying you aren't].
But, perhaps the draft does need a new editor. Or perhaps a new draft
(mine) should be used instead. I'd be happy to take over as editor of
the draft.
> Since some of that feedback comes from people who are apparently
> otherwise competent to speak on these topics (e.g. they operate
> networks, they write protocols, &c.), I take their remarks to be
> informed ones.
It isn't that __their__ opinions aren't informed. It's that __you__ take
their statements (and mine) out of context. It's that what you
__report__ about their opinions (and mine) is just wrong.
You would fail the MIT freshman advanced placement essay, which tests
incoming students for their ability to summarize 8 articles and report
the important points in the articles without attempting to persuade
anyone of a point of view. You can't seem to do that. Whether that
failure reflects on writing skill or intention is unclear. But either
case is not fixable by the WG other than by finding a new editor and an
essentially new draft.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
