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

Reply via email to