Re: [radext] A proposal to allow more than 256 packets on any connection

[Alan DeKok <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 24, 2017, at 9:44 PM, Ignacio Goyret <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> My comments *were* on a technical level.  The insinuation that I was uncivil is inappropriate.
> 
> Well, let's see: you followed that with these comments:
> 
>> You have pretty much zero track record in RADEXT.  Whatever you've done, it's been in a walled garden, with minimal interaction with the IETF or other implementors.
> 
> 
>> Since your implementation doesn't exist for purposes of peer review, we only have your naked assertion to go by.
> 
> Either one of those comments are either ad-hominen attacks or dismissive,

  Saying "your proposal is hard for my implementation" is a reasonable argument.

  Saying "I've been doing this for over two decades" is a data point, but isn't a convincing argument.

  Saying "my code is publicly available, and therefore I can demonstrate the code changes are simple" is a reasonable argument.

  Saying "my code is private, so therefor you have to believe me" isn't a convincing argument.

  My request for evidence-based discussion *is* me being dismissive of appeals to authority.  But it in no way is an ad hominem.

> either way quiet inappropriate for the discussion at hand. Thus, my call
> for civility.

  Asking for evidence isn't being uncivil, and no reasonable person would conclude otherwise.

> Your opinion, very valuable without a doubt, is not the only opinion
> in the world, just like your implementation is not the only implementation
> in the world.

  I never claimed my implementation was the only one in the world, and no reasonable person would insinuate otherwise.

  That comment is a thinly-veiled insult.  It shows that fi you can't convince people based on appeals to authority, you resort to ad hominems.

> I'm done arguing.

  That's your prerogative.

  Alan DeKok.