John, This to me was a balanced and very useful contribution to the discussion. Thank you. Cheers Leif > > 12 okt. 2022 kl. 19:17 skrev John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>: > > > > --On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 20:34 +0900 Masataka Ohta > <mohta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Lars Eggert wrote: >> >>> I believe that as a non-native speaker of English, the >>> moderators may have given you the benefit of doubt in the >>> past. I'm sure they will notice your admission of intent. >> >> So, there was, and still is, a mechanism to send initial >> warning >> messages. >> >> But, as I wrote: >> >> : which initiated no action by SAAs or an IETF chair. >> >> there was no initial private or public warning message sent >> against so explicit trial of: >> >> : Let me try. >> : >> : IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid >> : technical reasoning only to make network operations >> prohibitively >> : painful is a garbage protocol. >> : >> : LISP, which perform ID to locator mapping, which is best >> : performed by DNS, in a lot less scalable way than DNS >> : is a garbage protocol. > > (Readers of this list: the note that follows is one I would > normally send privately but, given the style and nature of this > discussion, it is probably appropriate to have it be public.) > > Ohta-san, > > It seems to me that there are two nearly separate issues here. > > One has to do with whether the threshold for particular language > being considered bad behavior is lower than it was a few years, > or a decade or more, ago. "Lower threshold", in that context, > means that some words or phrases that would have been tolerated > without comment then are treated as problems now. I think the > answer to that question is clearly "yes". The issues for > discussion is whether that lowered threshold is appropriate and > how far we go. As an extreme example, I sometimes write a > sentence similar to "That way of doing something is > <expletive>." One the one hand, I have not used any of the > terms that might appear on someone's list of bad words, so the > sentence should be ok. On the other, my intent was to say > something nasty, so maybe I should be sanctioned. > > My personal opinion is that the other issue is, in the long > term, far more important to the IETF. You have been > participating in the IETF for many years. During those years, > I've seen a number of contributions from you that I believe were > useful technically, whether I agreed or not. Regardless of the > vocabulary you use, statements like "Protocol X is Y", by > themselves or even with the type of statement you make above, > are not helpful. They are not helpful if "Y" is a negative > term; they are equally not helpful if "Y" is a positive one. > What is helpful, both to the debate and to the quality of the > IETF's consensus and output, is an explanation of why you have > reached that conclusion and, ideally when your conclusion is > negative, suggestions about better alternatives. > > Taking your second example above as an example, I disagree that > use of the DNS for the purposes for which LISP is designed would > be a good idea (or even a better one) especially when one > considers recent trends in DNS development. There is probably > an interesting, and technically and substantively useful, > discussion to be had about the difference in our opinions. But > a conversation that essentially consists of "it is bad", "no, > you are wrong", "no, _you_ are wrong", and so on does not help > anyone. > > Can you please concentrate on those explanations rather than on > statements like those above? While you might still incur the > wrath of the Moderator team and others if you use what is > considered inappropriate language these days, the explanations > would help us understand your perspective and the reasons behind > it and contribute to the discussions. You might even convince > people although in the two example above, I'd be surprised. It > would also help with what I assume is one of your goals, i.e., > to actually have your messages read rather than discarded > because people have concluded you have nothing constructive or > useful to say (again, regardless of the vocabulary you choose). > > thanks, > john >
