Re: [dnsext] Moderate one's tone, please.

Andrew Sullivan <> Tue, 01 February 2011 17:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82F573A6C56 for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:20:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.39
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.39 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.209, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tR5u5N1OykES for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0F23A6BAE for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:20:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9AB0B1ECB422 for <>; Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:23:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:23:34 -0500
From: Andrew Sullivan <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Subject: Re: [dnsext] Moderate one's tone, please.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNS Extensions working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:20:19 -0000

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:07:39AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> Phill was making technical statements, not "views". 

Perhaps you and I have different theories about the meanings of those
terms.  The point I'm trying to make is just that, the more
contentious the disagreement, the nastier discussions can get on
mailing lists.  So I'm trying to ask everyone to be even nicer than

> Note that I did quote from the relevant RFC as I did so, and Phill has  
> not responded on the technical merits (or lack thereof) of his 
> statements.

I wish to be pefectly clear that plainly stated cases comparing one
person's argument against relevant RFC(s) are not, in my opinion, to
be moderated and are not personal attacks.  I'm only saying that, in
making an argument, one can either make that argument nicely or state
things in more colourful and stinging terms; and, I'd prefer that we
lean towards the former approach (particularly just now).

For the same reasons, if anyone wishes to argue exclusively from
appeals to authority on the basis of deployed systems, he or she will
need to address the complaints that the deployed systems have
something wrong with them, or else accept that such arguments will
continue to be made.  But we will all benefit if we try very hard to
be even more civil and dispassionate than usual in discussing these



Andrew Sullivan
Shinkuro, Inc.