Re: comparison of drafts: was Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
This has developed into a debate on the merits of Sullivan's document draft-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations and my (Anderson's) document draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status. Inline: On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I have read Dean's comments, and I believe they reveal that Dean and I have fundamentally different ideas about reasoning and knowlege. That much is clear. I (Anderson) follow the scientific method. This is the mainstream view of civilization for the pursuit of science and engineering. My view is that there are vast areas of human experience in which knowledge is not well-defined as justified true belief. This is all well and good for religion and politics. It is not the case for scientific inquiry and engineering. In the fields of science and engineering, we are concerned with facts and reasoning. I believe that I am in the mainstream of contemporary epistemology in this view. Unless you consider the mainstream to be represented by intelligent design, you are not in the mainstream. And this view is what underpins my critique of the proposed -anderson- draft: I think it too often dresses up as certain truth propositions about which competent practitioners of the art sometimes disagree. Competency is the ability to give facts. Credibility relates to the veracity or truth of the facts given. Telecom, like most industries, is organized into science, engineering, and craft. Skills and competency as a craftsman do not always translate into skills and competency as an engineer, particularly when that person doesn't accept the scientific method as the means of conducting science and engineering, and proposes to replace the analysis of facts and logic by nothing but fervent belief. If the argument isn't based in fact and reason, then it is hard to consider one making such irrational argument as a competent and credible practitioner of any subject that is categorized as 'science and engineering'. Indeed, certainly they are not a credible practitioner of science and engineering. Regardless of their title as engineer, they are not performing or producing anything that could be categorized as 'science and engineering'. The only objections to the statements of fact in my (Anderson's) document have been of 'fervent opinion', not contrary fact. In contrast, Sullivan's document is marked by false claims made vague and ambiguous. I think that competent practitioners can disagree, and that a document that purports to offer advice about current practices should outline how those disagreements might have practical effects. Competent practitioner's can't disagree without evidence and facts supporting their views. Fervent belief is not a competent or credible basis for disagreement. The label of Opinion only applies to those things which _can't_ be proven true or false. Offering up views as 'opinion' which have been proven false is not something a competent, credible engineer would ever do. Offering up as 'fact' claims which haven't been proven true is also something that a competent, credible engineer wouldn't do. Competent and credible practitioner's can certainly disagree about speculation, opinion, and even facts. Disagreement often spurs further inquiry. However, they can't substitute opinion and fervent belief for fact, and they can't dismiss objections to their unsubstantiated claims as mere disagreement. I believe there is a current working group document on reverse mapping that offers exactly such an outline. Sullivan's document offers views that aren't based in fact, and obscures facts known to be true and claims known to be false; causing a reasonable, but uninformed person to impute as fact things that actually aren't fact, but are even known to be false. Sullivan's document misleads readers. I do, however, have to take special issue with one claim Dean Anderson makes, because it's a particularly pernicious form of scientism, and one that I think must not be left unchallenged. Actually, assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning are exactly what make up a valid argument. A valid argument is merely an argument whose premises, if true, would entail the conclusion. This statement is true of the logic of the argument. The argument is logically valid when the premises, if true, would entail the conclusion. The validity of an argument is classically entirely unrelated to the truth of its premises or conclusion. For instance: The classically has nothing to do with it. It isn't the case that 'once we used logic, and now we don't.' You are confusing logical validity with soundness. Let me give you some definitions, from a course I took in Logical Analysis by Dr. Leroy Meyer. Valid Argument: Premises imply the conclusions Sound Argument: Valid with actually true premises. An unsound argument is a kind of fallacy. I have no idea whether the conclusion or any premise is true, because I don't know what gerwuffle and blort
Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
hat wg-co-chair=on The 19 August cut-off having passed, and having seen no support for WG adoption of draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status from anyone but the draft's author, the Chicago decision not to adopt the draft stands. /hat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
Dear colleagues (Dean especially), On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 03:47:30PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: There is no waste. Those efforts culminated in my draft, and your draft. If it weren't for those discussions, I wouldn't have written my draft. [. . .] I don't want to spend too much more time on this thread, because I think it will probably not do anything more than re-hash previous arguments. This will be my last post in this thread. As previously in this thread, I want to emphasise that I am discussing my personal views, and not my views as editor of any document. I have read Dean's comments, and I believe they reveal that Dean and I have fundamentally different ideas about reasoning and knowlege. My view is that there are vast areas of human experience in which knowledge is not well-defined as justified true belief. I believe that I am in the mainstream of contemporary epistemology in this view. And this view is what underpins my critique of the proposed -anderson- draft: I think it too often dresses up as certain truth propositions about which competent practitioners of the art sometimes disagree. I think that competent practitioners can disagree, and that a document that purports to offer advice about current practices should outline how those disagreements might have practical effects. I believe there is a current working group document on reverse mapping that offers exactly such an outline. I do, however, have to take special issue with one claim Dean Anderson makes, because it's a particularly pernicious form of scientism, and one that I think must not be left unchallenged. Actually, assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning are exactly what make up a valid argument. A valid argument is merely an argument whose premises, if true, would entail the conclusion. The validity of an argument is classically entirely unrelated to the truth of its premises or conclusion. For instance: P1. If you gerwuffle, then you blort. P2. But you do not blort C. Therefore, you do not gerwuffle. is a valid argument (on the grounds that it denies the consequent -- often called _modus tollens_). I have no idea whether the conclusion or any premise is true, because I don't know what gerwuffle and blort mean. But I am sure the argument is nevertheless valid. I also note that the argument has nothing to do with scientific or juducial reasoning. I'll also observe in passing that the issue of RFC 2119 words in any document on this topic is, I suspect, a matter of taste and current practice. I think they don't belong in BCPs, except very rarely. That there are BCPs that happen to include such language is therefore irrelevant. I don't think they are used appropriately in the -anderson- draft, but I also think that's a meta-discussion that perhaps needs to be taken up with the author of draft-peterson-informational-normativity-00. Best regards, Andrew -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
Dear colleagues, On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:25:58PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Dean, do you solicit my feedback as to what changes would be necessary to obtain my (individual) support? If so, I will send those remarks. /hat Yes, thanks. Here are my remarks, as requested. Before beginning, I want to emphasise that these are my personal views on the draft in question: I do not make these remarks as editor of any document, including the current working group reverse mapping draft. The question is what would be necessary for me to support adopting draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-00 as a Working Group document. I do not support doing so at present, for several reasons. First, the WG has already a work item on the topic of reverse mappings, and has a candidate draft to deal with the topic. Since the WG has spent a fair amount of time on that document, all the editorial work that it has undergone would be wasted, and would have to be re-done on the -anderson- draft. That seems like a waste of the investment we've made. It is up to others, I emphasize, to judge whether the current WG draft reflects the views of the WG; I am not willing to speculate on that topic in this mail or other mails in this thread. My argument here is not that one text is better than another; but that, all things considered, the more mature text is the one to be preferred for WG effort, assuming we are going to adopt any text on a given topic. Supposing there were no existing WG draft, however, there are some additional matters in the -anderson- draft that would need to be addressed before I could contemplate offering support for it. To begin with, the language is strangely charged in a number of cases. For example, there is this passage from section 1: Facts have been obscured by advocacy and false assumptions. Consequently, myths have developed regarding the notion of proper use of reverse DNS records, and what reverse mapping information reasonably means outside of the organization providing the data. There are also several places in the document where a statement is introduced by Myth: or Fact:. The style makes for an arresting initial effect, but I'm not convinced that the message is any clearer for it. It also seems to manufacture controversy where none exists: some of the Myths are propositions that I've never heard anyone assert. In such cases, at least more evidence is needed. Generally speaking, I think the document would need to be much more neutral in its treatment of the topic than it currently is in order to be a draft of the Working Group. In the same way, I think there is altogether too much damn-the-torpedos certainty in the document. The text, on my reading, describes issues in black and white where, in my view, there are many shades of gray. For instance, we have this: Fact: There is no justification for this conclusion. When pressed for a reason, advocates say that one is entitled to make decisions without justification because they have incomplete information. There is nothing about imcomplete information that justifies irrational or capricous decision making. Every scientific experiment and every court case involves conclusions and decisions based on incomplete information. There are legitimate methods of making decisions with incomplete information. No scientific or judicial method involves an entitlement to act irrationally or capriciously. Legitimate methods do not depend on false assumptions, particularly those with security and trust implications. Bombastic assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning do not an argument make. Repeating that a course of action is irrational doesn't prove that it is. Reasonable and competent experts in the field sometimes have differences of opinion about this topic; there is nothing wrong with that, but the current text is too busy grinding axes to note as much -- or even that there is an RFC recommending that matching forward and reverse DNS data be used for qualifying email for acceptance. Moreover, the analogy doesn't even hold up: the histories of both science and jurisprudence are filled with irrational and capricious decision making. For example, we now know that Kepler faked his data, that Wegener was laughed at and derided by his geologist colleagues, and that the Scott v Sanford decision of the US Supreme Court was not a masterwork of balance and care. On similar ground, I think that the RFC 2119 words should be taken out of the document. Even if you think that such words belong in BCPs -- and I'm not convinced -- it's unclear that they belong in a document on this topic, where there are so many areas of disagreement among competent operators. It is also not plain to me exactly what the document is about: is it about the reverse mapping feature of DNS, or about how to achieve an end similar to what reverse mapping was intended to
Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 07:00:36PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: I note that I asked explicitly about two sets of remarks from the -anderson- draft that the current editors thought were possible candidates for inclusion in the current working group draft, and received no feedback in the meeting for such inclusion. In lieu of searching the minutes for them, perhaps you could repeat them? -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineeryou'll just have to do it again. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgphahh78Cbxh.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote: Dear colleagues, On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:33:18PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: Would it be too much to ask the 12 people who read the draft, what problems they have with the draft? What changes would be necessary to obtain support? hat=none I have read the draft. Dean, do you solicit my feedback as to what changes would be necessary to obtain my (individual) support? If so, I will send those remarks. /hat Yes, thanks. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
Re: [DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
Dear colleagues, On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 04:33:18PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote: Would it be too much to ask the 12 people who read the draft, what problems they have with the draft? What changes would be necessary to obtain support? hat=none I have read the draft. Dean, do you solicit my feedback as to what changes would be necessary to obtain my (individual) support? If so, I will send those remarks. /hat hat=draft editor I note that I asked explicitly about two sets of remarks from the -anderson- draft that the current editors thought were possible candidates for inclusion in the current working group draft, and received no feedback in the meeting for such inclusion. /hat Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x4110 ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
[DNSOP] Confirmation of Chicago decision on draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status
[Resending with fixed subject line, sorry for the duplication --sra] At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote: I would like to have the WG discuss taking up my draft (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status) as a WG document. Thanks, --Dean hat wg-co-chair=on Per Dean's request, I asked those WG participants who were present at the Chicago meeting two questions: Q1) How many had read Dean's draft? A1) 12 people claimed to have read Dean's draft. Q2) Of those who had read Dean's draft, how many supported adoption as of Dean's draft as a WG document instead of draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations A2) Nobody present in the room supported adoption of Dean's draft. As with any decision made at a face to face meeting this is not official until confirmed on the mailing list. So if there is anyone who: 1) Has read Dean's draft, and 2) Supports WG adoption of Dean's draft, please speak up. The chairs will assume that Dean himself has read and supports his own draft. Anybody else? Silence will be taken as confirmation of the tentitive decision from the face to face meeting, as will off-topic postings. So if you want the WG to adopt this draft, please say so calmly and distinctly. Cut-off for this confirmation call will be 00:00:00 UTC on 19 August 2007. This is longer than I would ordinarily wait for a confirmation call, but many people take holidays in August, and Dean has done the right thing here by offering the WG an alternative draft for consideration rather than just complaining about the draft that he opposes, so I want to make sure that Dean's alternative draft gets a fair chance. /hat ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop ___ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
