Dave,

> 2. Your 'for the sake of' is uncalled for and dismissive.  Please stop
> doing that.  Attempts to be dismissive are a popular debating
> technique in the IETF, but they are counter-productive, as well as
> unprofessional.

Two things here:
First, please do not admonish participants for their behaviour: that's
for the chairs to do, and you should feel free to call things out to
us privately.  It's too easy for discussions to degenerate when we
move them away from the technical arguments.

Second, the chairs don't find Scott's comment to be at all dismissive,
as the "for the sake of" sentence needs to be taken in the context of
the subsequent sentence that explains that Scott doesn't think you've
given a suitable rationale for the proposed change.

Rather, you are demanding justifications such as hard data to support
opinions... the sort of hard data that you, yourself are not providing
to support your own opinions.  We see *that* as being dismissive and
unhelpful in progressing the discussion.

> 1. For this topic, they are irrelevant. There is nothing in the
> charter that says terminology must be preserved.  Interoperability is
> not endangered by changes in terminology.

My opinion is that interoperability might well be endangered by
changes in terminology, if it results in older and newer
implementations differing in how they handle things based on those
differences in terminology.  To the point at hand, though, that
opinion seems to be what Scott and John are also raising, and which
you are dismissing.


Everyone,

The chairs need the working group to move this discussion toward
resolution, which will require that we directly address each others'
points rather than relying on rhetoric aimed at keeping others in
defensive positions.  We all know how to move discussions forward
productively: listening to arguments and doing our best to understand
and respond to them, asking and responding to questions that seek
clarity, and accepting reasonable disagreements.  So let's all please
focus on that.

Barry and Seth

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to