On 2 Aug 2023, at 22:19, John C Klensin wrote: > I completely agree, but with one qualification: I don't believe that the IETF should be telling participants that the right > solution to a problem they are facing is to lie. That is > different from the natural (?) tendency of liars to lie. I'm particularly sensitive to the distinction (and hope I don't have to get into the detail here) because I was recently told that the best (perhaps only) way to get a new version of an I-D > posted was to lie about some requested information. I was not thinking of lying regarding arguments, but about who they are and with (because of that) what bias they might add to the data they have behind their arguments. We are, I claim, a meritocracy, where the best arguments win. For some definition of "best" of course, but part of that is to allow the evaluators of the arguments to evaluate the arguments. From my point of view at least. And in THAT process, who the person is that put the arguments forward is important. BUT, I am perfectly ok to have people lie. As long as they are forced to lie if they want, or think that have to. Easier and cheaper than to be strict and start to evaluate other attack vectors against biased arguments in a by a meritocracy driven process. Patrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
