Re: Troll feeding (was: get technical, please? , Re: Trees have oneroot)

Paul:

IMO, this thread is just an example of a need to find a logical way to describe
the DNS problems and the solutions. Part of the problem in the DNS discussions,
IMO, is that there is not even a "language" to describe the problem -- which, 
then,
tends to frustrate the participants in a dialogue, and we get postings like 
yours.

Public discussions, however, should also help develop such language, and that is
why we need to use them not for troll feeding but to serve the higher purpose of
communication -- while the postings that may serve the purpose of stopping
communication should be tappered off.  Then, from this improved language,
an Internet Draft will flow most naturally and be most naturally received.

Thus, I would invite you, either off- or on-list, to present your technical
viewpoint -- which I am sure is very valuable. My observation is simple to 
describe.
If a name query returns two answers (and today's malconfigured systems
may do just that, too) but we have a meta-system that is able to automatically
(or, manually if we so wish) disambiguate them for us so, then we are fine. The
point is that rather than trying to be always decidable and complete (which
attempt WILL fail), we have a system that is as complete as possible and leaves
the decidability issue to a meta-system. Different meta-systems may decide in
different ways, but this is good too -- because you can choose which meta-system
to  use.

Note that I always mention "meta-system" -- I would not suggest changes
to the DNS, in the same that I was not in favor of changing the DNS in
order to accomodate PKI.

Finally, my thought is that if we are willing to use public discussions to mine 
the
gold of truth, then we should be open and receptive to those discussions, as 
well
as when to end them and digest what was said.

Thanks for your input.
Ed Gerck



Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> Ed and Stef are smart enough to know that the IETF won't seriously
> consider their "proposals" without an Internet Draft; the fact that
> one doesn't exist should tell us all something.
>
> Ed and Stef are also smart enough to know that for every response
> they give, someone else will keep up the conversation. Is this really
> the best use of the IETF mailing list?
>
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --Internet Mail Consortium
>
> -
> This message was passed through 
> ietf_censored(_at_)carmen(_dot_)ipv6(_dot_)cselt(_dot_)it, which
> is a sublist of ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org(_dot_) Not all messages are passed.
> Decisions on what to pass are made solely by Raffaele D'Albenzio.