Re: Last Call: 'DNS Name Server Identifier Option (NSID)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid) (fwd)

[Dean Anderson <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Hi Dean,
> 
> I'm extremely leery of going down this conversational path, since I
> think I have already explained my views adequately on the WG list. 
> But since you ask for clarification, here it is.
> 
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 05:46:53PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> > anycast instance. However, lets be clear on what spoofing means:  To
> > make the NSID different between successive query responses from the same
> > instance is to spoof the number of instances. Indeed, the reason given
> 
> From my point of view, that is the meaning of "spoofing" only in your
> ideolect.  Everywhere I ever use the term "spoofing", I use it to
> mean one thing pretending to be another, not one thing delivering
> answers to identity questions which do not confirm the identity to
> the asker.

There is very little difference in "pretending to be another" if the
answer to the ___identity___question___ "does not confirm the identity."
This is a trivial distinction, at best. One that does not sustain your
argument, either.  I notice that both "not confirming", and "pretending
to be another"  also covers TCP signature spoofing: The TCP signature is
a question about the identity of the remote server. "TCP signature
spoofing"  also "does not confirm the identity". And "TCP signature
spoofing" also "pretends to be another".  In just exactly the same way,
in fact.

You are making a very strained effort at splitting hairs.

> > "Emotionally charged"????  What does that mean?  
> 
> It's a term that people who study arguments (which is what I did in a
> previous life) use to describe the use of words that have negative
> connotations, when a more neutral term is available.  You can read
> more about this issue at <http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e04.htm>.
> 
> For instance, in this case, the term "spoofing" suggests that the
> practice is some sort of malicious activity.

Yes; In this case, that's right. But there is no exaggeration. I'm
reporting substantial facts on this particular subject, which includes
scientific fraud---many would consider that a 'malicious' activity.

[I think your selection of 'malice' is the wrong term. I think
"untoward"  would be better.  Neither spoofing, nor scientific fraud
imply malice--an intention to harm, but both terms do suggest some kind
of deceptive, inappropriate, unseemly activity.  For simplicity, I'll
stick with 'malicious' in place of untoward or unseemly in what
follows.]

> In addition, the I-D as currently written is simply silent about the
> nature of the name server identifier.  You could describe it more
> neutrally, therefore, as "strong opacity", as opposed to the "weak
> opacity" that you seem to want.

Yes, the ID is silent on the nature. But that does not mean that the
nature isn't 'malicious' (read unseemly). It is malicious--I'm reporting
that fact to you.  This feature serves no legitimate purpose, and in
fact furthers a previously known malicious activity--scientific fraud.  
There is no exaggeration in this term. The scientific fraud has been
reported to the IESG, the IESG has investigated this matter, and shortly
an appeal will be made to the IAB.  Other organizations will also be
involved.  A more neutral description would belie and hide the nature of
the activity already associated with the scientific fraud by Daniel
Karrenberg et al.

Neither "strong opacity" nor "weak opacity" have any relevant meaning,
since there is nothing "strong" nor "weak" about the differences between
"Spoofed NSID" or "Opaque NSID".  "strong"/"weak" is a rather artificial
non-descript choice of adjectives.

> > Perhaps you are imputing emotion where none exists?  Or perhaps you are
> > emotionally concerned about your new co-worker (Joe Abley's) involvement
> > in the underlying scientific fraud of stateful anycast. I can see that.  
> 
> No, and I resent the _ad hominem_ attack.  Please don't do that.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy about irrelevant personal traits.  
_You_ attributed emotion (a personal trait) to my argument. If there was
an ad hominem, you made it.

But there is no fallacy in my response that you may have imputed emotion
where none exists. That is relevant to your assertion of emotion in my
argument. There is also no fallacy in an assertion that you (rather than
me) may be the one emotionally connected to your new coworker, who
stands to lose as a result of his involvement in the fraud I have
reported. This is relevant to why it is you who are emotionally
connected, rather than me.

I don't stand to lose anything whatsoever---I'm just reporting facts
which I'm confident will stand the test of time.  I've been vindicated
over time before on a few controversial subjects.  I've been though it
several times, and have no emotional involvement, any more than a
reporter for the NY Times has emotional involvement in the news.

> > I originally summarized your position as supporting the spoofing
> > text.
> 
> No, you summarized my position as being "for spoofing".  I am not for
> spoofing.  I'm not sure that anyone would be in favour of spoofing.

This splits hairs, exceedingly.

> > view in a heretofore unknown third category: Those that don't support
> > spoofing, don't support the current text, and don't support my proposal
> > for removing that text.
> 
> I do support the current text.  

Then you plainly support spoofing, as most people define the term, and
as most people on the WG understand the term.  And plainly you are in
the same group as Peter Koch and the others who I grouped in the "for
spoofing" category.  So your original objection was trivial.  Rather
than trying disassociate your position from Koch and the others, you
were aiming for something else---a word-smithing???  Did you not realize
your objection would be read as disassociation?  You seem articulate
enough to avoid that.

> My claim is that this document is not "for spoofing".  Neither am I.

That is interesting claim, but just attempts to draw a distinction where
there is none, in an effort to try to remove a well-established unseemly
character from the text under discussion.  We used to describe this sort
of word-smithing effort as an "attempt to polish a t*rd".

> This document allows server operators to set policy.  I think that's
> a good thing.  I am opposed to any changes to that.
> 
> I hope this clarifies things for you.  If not, I reluctantly conclude
> that I am unable to make my position clear to you.  In either case, I
> will not discuss this on list any more.
> 
> Best regards,
> A
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




--
to unsubscribe send a message to [e-mail] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>