Hi Dean, On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:22:08PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > but if others disagree with me, I will cheerfully include your > > suggestions. > > It seems others disagree. On the point in question, I have received not a single indication of agreement with your proposed text. Until I do, I consider this topic (and, therefore, this thread) closed. I'm a little concerned about some of the rest of the claims you make, however, so I want to reply to them below. I don't think a great deal of to and fro on what appear to be mostly irrelevant topics serve the working group, so you may consider this my last posting on this topic unless someone comes up with some suggested changes to the text. > 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. I believe you suggested that your draft should be considered entirely alternate text. That is not a modification of the text, it is a wholesale replacement; and a replacement that engages (as I already noted in my comments to you) a somewhat different set of topics than the reverse-mapping-considerations draft. That makes me believe that your real claim is simply that the existing text is entirely wrong, which entails that it cannot be repaired and has to be replaced. Therefore, you are not engaged with _this_ text, but with some other one. > 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. To be clear: that is not my goal. I'm also not entirely sure what motivation has to do with the result, which is supposed to be a text that stands on its own. If I didn't know better, I would imagine you to be attempting to impugn my character instead of addressing the text. > Again and again the presence of discredited claims has been shown; > and again and again you make trivial, gratuitous changes and report > "all fixed!". I do not believe the changes to the draft that have been made in the last year (I was only appointed to help edit this draft in July 2006, I think the archive will show) have been trivial or gratuitous; I believe the changes in fact alter the meaning of the draft. They may not completely alter the draft to say what everybody (you, for instance) wants, but that is not the same thing as the changes being trivial or gratuitous. > I (and others) have just said that claims of improved trust You have repeated this charge several times, and I keep pointing out that the draft does not in fact anywhere make the claims you seem to be saying it does. Your continued insistence on this point makes me very suspicious of any claim you might make to have read and understood the actual text. It is hard to take seriously objections that appear to be based on mis- or non-reading of the text. > The group has repeatedly rejected the claims in the draft that "you just > edited" once it is detailed how the draft supports discredited claims. I am not sure what your evidence is for this claim (especially since we have seen precisely one response so far to the -03 draft, and a number of responses this year suggesting broad agreement with the -02 draft). If you wish to press that claim, I would urge you to point me to the mailing list messages that support your view. > discredited claims you keep trying to work in [while simultaneously, > these last few years anyway, saying you aren't]. The remark in brackets there makes me suspect you have me confused with someone else. I think it is probably worth making the discussion a little less personal, so I actually don't care who you think I am. But it doesn't serve anyone to muddle the discussion with claims about what I have been doing for "the last few years" in respect of this draft. > 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. I am pleased to congratulate you on your appointment to the entry and placement committee at MIT! Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
