I urge people to support my draft (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status). My draft encourages Reverse DNS, improves understanding of Reverse DNS, informs about discredited practices, and recommends good practices. My draft accomplishes the purpose charted by the WG much better than the Sullivan draft and doesn't have any of the drawbacks of Sullivan's draft.
Inline On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > I believe you suggested that your draft should be considered entirely > alternate text. That is not a modification of the text, it is a > wholesale replacement; and a replacement that engages (as I already > noted in my comments to you) a somewhat different set of topics than > the reverse-mapping-considerations draft. I (Anderson) copied some text from Sullivan's draft, and rewrote those parts that were wrong, and I included some information about Reverse DNS that was informative. So my draft really just has an entirely different editor. My draft engages in the topic that the working group decided to work on: Encouraging Reverse DNS. I agree Sullivan's draft has a slightly different set of topics that deviates from the topic of Encouraging DNS IN-ADDR as charted by the WG. > > based on extended and repeated experiences, that your goal is to mislead > > people about specific uses of reverse DNS, while simultaneously trying > > to convince critics of the draft that their concerns have been addressed > > and that discredited claims have been removed. > > To be clear: that is not my goal. That leaves a lack of writing skills as the cause of the problems. But there is a element of willfulness over the repeated experiences that can't be entirely ignored. But I do agree we are not here to teach writing skills; Just to diagnose the problem that prevents effective writing of the draft and correct that problem. Once we conclude there is a problem, we don't need to further investigate the root causes of the problem. > I'm also not entirely sure what motivation has to do with the result, > which is supposed to be a text that stands on its own. If I didn't > know better, I would imagine you to be attempting to impugn my > character instead of addressing the text. I'm disputing Sullivan's abilities and disposition to correctly report facts, statements, and opinions of others. Those abilities are relevant and requisite skills for the task of editing this draft. > > The group has repeatedly rejected the claims in the draft that "you > > just edited" once it is detailed how the draft supports discredited > > claims. > > I am not sure what your evidence is for this claim (especially since > we have seen precisely one response so far to the -03 draft, and a > number of responses this year suggesting broad agreement with the -02 > draft). If you wish to press that claim, I would urge you to point me > to the mailing list messages that support your view. I think Mr. Sullivan well knows the history of this draft from its previous incarnation as the draft-ietf-dnsop-inaddr-required, and Sullivan knows that the version number was reset when the draft was renamed and re-submitted under the new name. Sullivan knows that the name was changed to address concerns about the implication of the name, even after explicit calls to 'require in-addr' were supposedly removed from the draft. Sullivan knows that the WG didn't support that the notion that inaddr was required, nor did it support any other discredited notions. So Mr. Sullivan knows the past claims that were very explicitly rejected. This is yet another example of a failure to report accurately. Indeed, The history of the in-addr draft dates back to 2000: Robert Elz stated it best (7 years ago and still relevant): 8/13/2000 http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg00544.html "Sorry people, this draft is a total waste of time. "I'm an absolute supporter of properly running in-addr.arpa domains, and if someone wanted to write an RFC to explain to people what they're useful for, and why the data needs to be maintained, that would be fine." For 7 years, we've had the same argument, as advocates try to mislead people about the contents of the draft, and people (such as myself, Elz, and a host of others) have picked up each new draft to find essentially the same set of discredited claims. So, I finally wrote a draft that says the right things. BTW, these same 'broad statements of support' for the purposes of Sullivan's draft, (similar to Elz's quoted above) can also be considered to support the statements in my draft as well: People support status and encouragement of Reverse DNS. People don't support the claims that either depend on false assumptions, discredited practices, or require in-addr.arpa. Indeed, a serious problem is that people don't understand that they have been misled about the contents of Sullivan's draft; instead people, (rather like Elz in 2000, support honest information; to the extent they have been misled, people think Sullivan et al aren't trying to require in-addr or advocate discredited practices. When it is pointed out to them how each new version still does that, they are then against Sullivan's draft. In fact, there is hardly a person who supports the discredited practices that Sullivan promotes in his draft while assuring people his draft doesn't promote such practices. Sullivan has just misled people with false assurances of "its fixed!", when its not fixed. My draft and Sullivan's draft say very different things. Anyone who reads my draft, and thinks it basically the same as Sullivan's draft, has greatly misunderstood Sullivan's draft. I think most people will agree with my draft; certainly, no one is misled by the plain clear language in my draft. > I am pleased to congratulate you on your appointment to the entry and > placement committee at MIT! Yet another false report from Mr. Sullivan. I suppose that report, too, needs to be discredited: I am not on the placement committee at MIT. However, I know some of the people who evaluate the advanced placement essays for MIT and sometimes for other universities. I do not see the individual essays, but I know how the system works. There was nothing in the previous text that would imply that I am on the 'entry and placement committee at MIT'. The false report is yet another example of the willful refusal or inability of Mr. Sullivan to accurately report on the statements of others. It rather proves my assertion about Mr. Sullivan's abilities or disposition, though. Of course, so does the previous litany of misrepresentations, such as Sullivan's recent false report that I don't think Reverse DNS to be useful. I (like Elz and many, many others), just don't think it is useful for trust purposes and object to the false assumptions and discredited practices that Sullivan presents as credulous. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
