Re: Rude responses (Was: Last Call: <draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-19.txt> (Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1) to Proposed Standard)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 8/21/2013 12:46 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> It is not your complaint about the imposition of new requirements that
> is problematic, or your point that it is not useful to continue that
> line of discussion. Talk about the utility of a comment all that you
> want. It is the sarcasm and the rudeness that I am saying is
> unreasonable. Especially coming from a senior member of the community,

OK.  No sarcasm in IETF postings.  Good luck with that.

More seriously...

You might have noticed that there have been a variety of folk making 
unrealistic or misguided suggestions and that they have been receiving 
entirely muted and exploratory -- albeit negative -- responses.

The implication that I think you've missed here is the obligation that 
should hold for a 'senior' participant who is lodging concerns.  The 
current thread is being tenaciously pursued by another "senior" member 
and former AD and the line of objections and requirements being put 
forward are studiously ignoring the considerable efforts of the working 
group and the considerable practical field history.

As such, they represent their own form of disrespect.

The alternative phrasing you suggest makes sense for average, random, 
problematic criticism.  But as I indicated in the previous note, the 
phrasing suffers from implying a degree of legitimacy that is not 
warranted for this thread, from another 'senior' participant.

I realize you don't agree with that view, but I'll again note that I'm 
not aware of any formal rule that my posting violated and certainly not 
any pattern of IETF practice.  (Of course I can read the Code of Conduct 
to the contrary, but having done that, I felt that each of its relevant 
points had a counter in this case.)

I, too, preferred a far more constructive tone to the thread, and 
attempted to contribute that initially.  But persistent 
unreasonableness, when it can't be attributed to ignorance, warrants an 
explicit note.  So I gave it.

Taking this thread seriously, even to the extent of treating it with a 
cautiously respectful tone, encourages a persistent silliness in the 
IETF that is strategically destructive, because it communicates our 
tolerance for having experienced participants waste people's time and 
effort.


> the only purpose it seems to serve is to bully others into not
> participating in the conversation.

You think I could bully Patrik?  Good luck with that, too.


 >If you think that the conversation
> has gone on too long, you're perfectly within rights to ask the manager
> of the thread (in this case, myself or the chairs), in public if you
> like, to make a call and say that the issue is closed. But again, the
> tactics displayed above are not professional and not reasonable
> rhetorical mode.

The thread itself does not have a professional premise, Pete.  The 
record needs to reflect at least one comment to that effect.


>> I don't recall that being a proscribed behavior, since it has nothing
>> to do with personalities.  So, please explain this in a way that does
>> not sound like Procrustean political correctness.
>
> I am not sure what the first sentence means. And I'm sorry that you
> believe that my stance on this is Procrustean. But the fact is that rude
> comments of this sort do not contribute to consensus-building in the least.

The thread has its own responsibility to attempt consensus building.  It 
wasn't doing that.  In fact, in its way, it has represented a classic, 
continuing of bullying against DNS pragmatics.


>> For the record, I entirely acknowledge that my note has an edge to it
>> and yes, of course alternate wording was possible.  However the thread
>> is attempting to reverse extensive and careful working group effort
>> and to ignore widely deployed and essential operational realities,
>> including published research data.
>
> I appreciate your input that you believe that some or all of the
> objectors are ignoring operational realities.

I didn't say that.  This current exchange is about a specific thread. 
It is now your turn to be more careful in what you assert.


> Perhaps they are. But the
> fact is that Last Call is a time for the community to take a last look
> at WG output. If senior members of the community (among which there are
> several in this thread) are suspicious of the output, it *is* important
> to make sure that their concerns are addressed.

Only after determining that their concerns are reasonable.


> Maybe they simply don't
> have all of the information. But maybe the WG has missed something
> essential in all that careful work. Both have historically happened many
> times.

Again, you are missing the point that we'd already done through quite a 
bit of that, with no apparent effect.


> It is far more distracting and destabilizing for the IETF to come out of
> a Last Call with experienced members of the community suspicious that a
> bad result has occurred,

As an abstraction, your point is of course entirely valid.  But your 
premise is that a reasonable discussion is possible and that the 
suspicions can be allayed.  We already had solid indications that 
neither were achievable.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net