The issue is not that your perspective isn't potentially valuable, the
point is that all of these issues have been discussed, at great length,
on *this* list. We can not reopen all the issues every time someone new
joins.
[...]
And I would add to that that the WG has made consensus decisions at
certain points, which is what Andy was trying to address. IETF WGs work
by consensus, and certain decisions of this WG have already been made
before.
Sorry to post again, because I already made my points clear, but I must address
this black propoganda (or personalization of facts).
Instead of making a general statement that all of my points are invalid due to
some phantom concensus decisions, if you are so familiar with those concensus
decisions (and the issues involved in them), why not just answer my post with
specific links to those representative posts regarding those threads for each
point I made? I am sure that would be more useful than some generalized
propoganda. It might be instructive that when you start to refute my points
point-by-point with links to past threads, then we might discover something or
at least my points will be put to rest.
I have seen other examples here (e.g. the Cambridge deploy thread) where others
have taken the time to reference preference threads regarding important points,
and I have thus seen new information (or perspectives) sprout because of that.
The argument that you have been working on this for years seems to hold less
weight when you do not have concensus on how to handle the current roadblock
and you do not have an algorithm which can prevent forgery 100% for a domain
that declares a forgery DNS record.
Please stop the personalization of debate and go back to the facts. If you
disagree with my position, then please present some relevant links to past
posts. I have an open mind.