Re: Last Call: RFC 6346 successful: moving to Proposed Standard

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 12/4/2014 5:34 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:23 AM 12/4/14, Ted Lemon
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 11:00 PM, <[e-mail]> 
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> That's an ad-hominem argument that has no bearing on the current 
>>> proposal.
>> 
>> It's not "ad hominem" to ask someone why they think one thing is 
>> different from another.
...
> It would help me understand your question (as a 3rd party to the 
> conversation) if you would say more about why you think an objection 
> to the tex Bob quoted from RFC 6346 would be related to objections
> to MAP-E, MAP-T and Lightweight 4over6.


That's really an essential point.

As originally asked, the question to Ted was about Ted, since it offers
no foundation for challenging Ted on the linkage between the current
proposal and a set of previous ones.

In the form Ralph is suggesting, the questionner takes responsibility
for stating and defending the linkage, so that the question then asked
to Ted really is clearly about the linkage.

Ad hominem mis-steps often really are mis-steps in language formulation.
 Legitimate points or questions are unfortunately cast in terms of the
other person.  They almost never need to be, and even when they do, the
language can be cast with a clear focus on the substance and not the
other person.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net