On May 27, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > >> More than expecting to, we are actively working on deployments with parties >> interested in "opting-in" to this open, standards-based, authenticated email >> ecosystem. Unfortunately for the sake of this debate, I cannot disclose who >> just yet. > > > A problem, here, is that you are using that citation as a kind of proof of the > correctness of your position, but we do not have access to the data to make an > independent assessment.
It was offered in the spirit of being helpful since so many people on the list believe (and assert) that no one is using ADSP. Actually in my standards development experience (almost entirely in fora outside of IETF) it is somewhere between unusual and disallowed to ask for or provide any information about deployment or product plans. I think I have not done anything here that violates anti-trust law, but I take your point and will refrain from any other references to non-public data. > > On the average, much of the argumentation in this thread -- by most of the > participants -- seems to be in a style that asserts one person's expertise > over > another's, and generally seems inclined to refrain from considering details > either for or against a position. Ad hominen or hostile tone is then mixed > in > to make the defender (or attacker) feel superior while nonetheless failing to > respond with substance. As a newbie to this list, I have to say I agree. This has been a far less collegial debate than what I'm used to. That said, I may be guilty of reciprocating, and if anyone feels they have been on the receiving end of such, I apologize. > > In a serious discussion, I'd expect to see someone's offering a specific > criticism, concern, counter-example or the like to get a response that > incorporates what was offered, responding to the particulars. For some > reason, > discussion here seems to be resistance to such a substantive clarifying > efforts. I would welcome this moment of retrospection as a turning point in how we progress out deliverables in a more efficient, informed, and collegial manner. I take it that you will be operating under this general rubric going forward as well. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
