ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise

2004-09-10 16:28:51


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.