On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hubris? it has already lasted 40. > > and it's such a short way from 40 to "hundreds or thousands." i get it. 40 is not very short of 100 at all. And creating a legacy that other people have to work round is rather too easy in this industry. The place is littered with them. COBOL will probably last another century. QWERTY will. Lasting has little to being good. >> I can understand why people might not want to worry about long term >> issues but not why you would want to insult people who do think about >> them. > > first, i did not insult anyone. if you took it as an insult, take it up > with your shaman, rabi, priest, or shrink. You pulled the 'I don't understand this so nobody else can' move. That is pretty insulting. >> You botched DNSSEC deployment because you were incapable of >> considering such issues > > damn! and i missed where i had anything to do with dnssec deployment. > but i am glad we all now understand why it has fared so badly. You are the reason that DNSSEC did not deploy in 2002. There was a clear WG consensus to change the spec to make it deployable and you used your position as WG chair to block it. The code was written and would have deployed with the ATLAS upgrade. You are the only reason it did not. You thought that changing the specification to meet a deployment issue was unreasonable. I told you repeatedly that there would be no deployment unless the change was made. The result was that you 'won' and DNSSEC was on hold for six years while the WG undid the mess you made. Congratulations. And now deployment of DNSSEC is much harder because the Internet is now a cabinet level concern and there is an actual Russia-China treaty that requires them to block it (amongst other things). >> if we accept your argument now we will get another botch job. > > an i am guilty of ad homina? Ad homniem is actually a valid argument against an unsubstantiated personal opinion. 'Randy Bush made a botch of DNSSEC' is a perfectly valid argument for rejecting Randy Bush's opinion on the value of long term planning. >> The fact that outcomes cannot be predicted with 100% certainty does >> not mean that all outcomes are equally likely or that we have >> absolutely no control over them or that there is no point in >> discussing them. > > my point was predicting technology outcomes "hundreds if not thousands" > of years in the future is beyond hyperbolic. The point related to the institutions, not the technology. Predicting that institutions will become corrupt over long periods of time is hardly hyperbolic. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/