Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:25:58PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > Dean, do you solicit my feedback as to what
> > changes would be necessary to obtain my (individual) support?  If so,
> > I will send those remarks.
> > </hat>
> 
> Yes, thanks.

Here are my remarks, as requested.  Before beginning, I want to
emphasise that these are my personal views on the draft in question: I
do not make these remarks as editor of any document, including the
current working group reverse mapping draft.  

The question is what would be necessary for me to support adopting
draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-00 as a Working Group document.  I
do not support doing so at present, for several reasons.

First, the WG has already a work item on the topic of reverse
mappings, and has a candidate draft to deal with the topic.  Since the
WG has spent a fair amount of time on that document, all the editorial
work that it has undergone would be wasted, and would have to be
re-done on the -anderson- draft.  That seems like a waste of the
investment we've made.  It is up to others, I emphasize, to judge whether
the current WG draft reflects the views of the WG; I am not willing to
speculate on that topic in this mail or other mails in this thread.
My argument here is not that one text is better than another; but
that, all things considered, the more mature text is the one to be
preferred for WG effort, assuming we are going to adopt any text on a
given topic.

Supposing there were no existing WG draft, however, there are some
additional matters in the -anderson- draft that would need to be
addressed before I could contemplate offering support for it.  To
begin with, the language is strangely charged in a number of cases.
For example, there is this passage from section 1:

   Facts have been obscured by advocacy and false assumptions.
   Consequently, myths have developed regarding the notion of proper
   use of reverse DNS records, and what reverse mapping information
   reasonably means outside of the organization providing the data.

There are also several places in the document where a statement is
introduced by "Myth:" or "Fact:".  The style makes for an arresting
initial effect, but I'm not convinced that the message is any clearer
for it.  It also seems to manufacture controversy where none exists:
some of the "Myths" are propositions that I've never heard anyone
assert.  In such cases, at least more evidence is needed.  Generally
speaking, I think the document would need to be much more neutral in
its treatment of the topic than it currently is in order to be a draft
of the Working Group.

In the same way, I think there is altogether too much
damn-the-torpedos certainty in the document.  The text, on my reading,
describes issues in black and white where, in my view, there are many
shades of gray.  For instance, we have this:

   Fact: There is no justification for this conclusion.  When pressed
   for a reason, advocates say that one is entitled to make decisions
   without justification because they have "incomplete information".
   There is nothing about imcomplete information that justifies
   irrational or capricous decision making.  Every scientific experiment
   and every court case involves conclusions and decisions based on
   incomplete information.  There are legitimate methods of making
   decisions with incomplete information.  No scientific or judicial
   method involves an entitlement to act irrationally or capriciously.
   Legitimate methods do not depend on false assumptions, particularly
   those with security and trust implications.

Bombastic assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning do not an
argument make.  Repeating that a course of action is irrational
doesn't prove that it is.  Reasonable and competent experts in the
field sometimes have differences of opinion about this topic; there is
nothing wrong with that, but the current text is too busy grinding
axes to note as much -- or even that there is an RFC recommending that
matching forward and reverse DNS data be used for qualifying email for
acceptance.  Moreover, the analogy doesn't even hold up: the histories
of both science and jurisprudence are filled with irrational and
capricious decision making.  For example, we now know that Kepler
faked his data, that Wegener was laughed at and derided by his
geologist colleagues, and that the Scott v Sanford decision of the US
Supreme Court was not a masterwork of balance and care.

On similar ground, I think that the RFC 2119 words should be taken out
of the document.  Even if you think that such words belong in BCPs --
and I'm not convinced -- it's unclear that they belong in a document
on this topic, where there are so many areas of disagreement among
competent operators.

It is also not plain to me exactly what the document is about: is it
about the reverse mapping feature of DNS, or about how to achieve an
end similar to what reverse mapping was intended to do?  I believe all
the discussion of RFC1788 should be removed, because it's distracting
in the context.  Alternatively, the whole document should be rewritten
as "ICMP Domain Name Messages Considered Beneficial", and turned into
an argument for that protocol.

Each of these would, to me, be individually a reason not to adopt the
document as a WG draft without assurances that the issue would be
repaired.  Together, I think they make the document in its current
form a poor candidate for adoption.

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