On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is
unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community,
OK. No sarcasm in IETF postings. Good luck with that.
More seriously...
You might have noticed that there have been a variety of folk making
unrealistic or misguided suggestions and that they have been receiving
entirely muted and exploratory -- albeit negative -- responses.
The implication that I think you've missed here is the obligation that
should hold for a 'senior' participant who is lodging concerns. The
current thread is being tenaciously pursued by another "senior" member
and former AD and the line of objections and requirements being put
forward are studiously ignoring the considerable efforts of the working
group and the considerable practical field history.
As such, they represent their own form of disrespect.
The alternative phrasing you suggest makes sense for average, random,
problematic criticism. But as I indicated in the previous note, the
phrasing suffers from implying a degree of legitimacy that is not
warranted for this thread, from another 'senior' participant.
I realize you don't agree with that view, but I'll again note that I'm
not aware of any formal rule that my posting violated and certainly not
any pattern of IETF practice. (Of course I can read the Code of Conduct
to the contrary, but having done that, I felt that each of its relevant
points had a counter in this case.)
I, too, preferred a far more constructive tone to the thread, and
attempted to contribute that initially. But persistent
unreasonableness, when it can't be attributed to ignorance, warrants an
explicit note. So I gave it.
Taking this thread seriously, even to the extent of treating it with a
cautiously respectful tone, encourages a persistent silliness in the
IETF that is strategically destructive, because it communicates our
tolerance for having experienced participants waste people's time and
effort.
the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not
participating in the conversation.
You think I could bully Patrik? Good luck with that, too.
>If you think that the conversation
has gone on too long, you're perfectly within rights to ask the manager
of the thread (in this case, myself or the chairs), in public if you
like, to make a call and say that the issue is closed. But again, the
tactics displayed above are not professional and not reasonable
rhetorical mode.
The thread itself does not have a professional premise, Pete. The
record needs to reflect at least one comment to that effect.
I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing
to do with personalities. So, please explain this in a way that does
not sound like Procrustean political correctness.
I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you
believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude
comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least.
The thread has its own responsibility to attempt consensus building. It
wasn't doing that. In fact, in its way, it has represented a classic,
continuing of bullying against DNS pragmatics.
For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it
and yes, of course alternate wording was possible. However the thread
is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort
and to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities,
including published research data.
I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the
objectors are ignoring operational realities.
I didn't say that. This current exchange is about a specific thread.
It is now your turn to be more careful in what you assert.
Perhaps they are. But the
fact is that Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look
at WG output. If senior members of the community (among which there are
several in this thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important
to make sure that their concerns are addressed.
Only after determining that their concerns are reasonable.
Maybe they simply don't
have all of the information. But maybe the WG has missed something
essential in all that careful work. Both have historically happened many
times.
Again, you are missing the point that we'd already done through quite a
bit of that, with no apparent effect.
It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of
a Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a
bad result has occurred,
As an abstraction, your point is of course entirely valid. But your
premise is that a reasonable discussion is possible and that the
suspicions can be allayed. We already had solid indications that
neither were achievable.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net