Re: [DNSOP] List conduct

[Masataka Ohta <[e-mail]>]

Paul Vixie wrote:
>> such destructive statements as

>> IPv6 with unnecessarily lengthy 16B addresses without valid
>> technical reasoning only to make network operations prohibitively
>> painful is a garbage protocol.
>> 
>> and
>> 
>> LISP, which perform ID to locator mapping, which is best performed
>> by DNS, in a lot less scalable way than DNS is a garbage protocol.
>> 
>> is protected by "the freedom of speech" and is not
>> "unprofessional" and is fully acceptable.

> i think the code of conduct may be inadequately worded.

Code itself? Then, you should discuss it not here but other
appropriate places.

> the above 
> snippets in which ipv6 and lisp are designated "garbage protocols" 
> have a productivity error in that neither is actionable.

Action by IETF becomes possible only after some IETF consensus
is reached, which is obviously impossible for poor IPv6 and
LISP, because there are certain amount of people disparately
acting for them.

But, it does not mean arguments against IPv6, LISP and DNSSEC
are prohibited in the main and other mailing lists as if they
were "unprofessional".

> to use 
> community resources and to take time and attention from other 
> participants for no reason other than to publish invective is an 
> abuse of position.

Which position? It should be noted that "freedom of speech"
of people without any position always assumes

 > to use
 > community resources and to take time and attention from other
 > participants

So?

Or, are you saying chairs are abusing their position?

> we should make the best case we can for the positions we hope the WG 
> will adopt,

As we, including chairs, are talking about "the IETF Code of Conduct".
you MUST make the best case not for this WG but for the entire Internet.

> and answer any questions or misunderstandings of those 
> positions during any subsequent debate.

I'm fine to continue such debate.

> for example, here is my 
> statement on the quality and utility of DNSSEC, along with others':

Let me respond for or against it later in a separate mail.

						Masataka Ohta