If the document were an actual critique with examples of problems, and
focused on the area (ART) that apparently has had problems, it would
probably be a useful document.
Yours,
Joel
On 6/6/2022 9:51 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 08:56 +1200 Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06-Jun-22 23:56, Keith Moore wrote:
On 6/6/22 04:20, tom petch wrote:
I saw an apology for the use of '...considered harmful'
recently and was suprised that that phrase was .. well
considered harmful
This makes me wonder: how is making a reference to a letter
that's rather famous in Computer Science history any
different that referring to any established technical term or
concept? Granted not absolutely everyone will have heard of
that letter, but is it really hostile to newcomers to use
well-established language of the subject domain that we work
in when that language isn't, say, sexist or racist? Is
it hostile
to newcomers to refer to the end-to-end principle?
I suspect that, as always, context is everything. If somebody
had written
a draft "6to4 considered harmful" some years ago, I don't
think that
Keith or I would have been upset. (If you don't get that, see
RFC 3056.)
But if they had written a draft "Carpenter and Moore
considered harmful"
we would have been quite angry. Somewhere in between is
"Carpenter and Moore's
work considered harmful" - I'm really not sure how I would
have reacted to that.
As a matter of fact that work was subject to a lot of
criticism, as was its
extension by RFC 3068, but I don't recall a single ad hominem
comment.
We can be critical without being rude.
Brian,
I think the problems arise when almost any attempt to be
critical is interpreted as being at least disrespectful even if
not actually rude.
john
