Re: [dnsext] a plea for restraint

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

I think the real problem here is that the requirements being asserted are
both ambiguous and inconsistent.

One way to possibly demonstrate this would be to draw up a matrix with the
list of proposals raised and objections raised on the two axes.

I think it will be found that several of the objections raised of the form
'that will not work because' will be found to exclude absolutely every one
of the proposals raised.

If those objections are excluded from the matrix the problem is solvable,
albeit not in a timescale that will be acceptable to some.


On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> While the tone of the message below might be slightly offensive, the
> sentiment is exactly right, fewer but more thoughtful messages work better.
>
> Remember that this is a world wide list, thus a certain percentage of
> valued members of the list is sleeping at any given moment,
> they should be granted the courtesy of being able to chime in before any
> one person sends multiple messages on a topic.
>
>        Olafur
>
>
>
> On 13/09/2010 6:25 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> if you see your name below more than twice, please go to a web browser and
>> read<http://www.thementalmilitia.com/wiki/Yammerhead>  and consider more
>> carefully the effect you're having on us bystanders.  i CANNOT keep up and
>> so i'm just refiling it all.  one carefully considered essay-style message
>> per person per day would be difficult enough, but i would at least try.
>> when it's back and forth back and forth i just don't care and won't try.
>> i am probably not alone.  when we later try to declare consensus then a
>> lot
>> of folks will suddenly start reading again and we'll discover that we only
>> had a consensus among the top talkers.  PLEASE put a lid on it, gentlemen!
>>
>>  10299  09/13 "W.C.A. Wijngaard  Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions -
>> work-arou
>>  10300  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10301  09/13 Florian Weimer     Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's
>> top
>>  10302  09/13 [e-mail].  Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: No
>> protocol cha
>>  10303  09/13 [e-mail].  Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: No
>> protocol cha
>>  10304  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10305  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10306  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10307  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions -
>> work-arou
>>  10308  09/13 Brian Dickson      [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts on
>> the Gr
>>  10309  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10310  09/13 Brian Dickson      Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions -
>> work-arou
>>  10311  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10312  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts
>> on th
>>  10313  09/13 Paul Hoffman       Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts
>> on th
>>  10314  09/13 Tony Finch         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts
>> on th
>>  10315  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10316  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>  10317  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no
>> prot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/