Subject: [dnsext] a plea for restraint

From: Paul Vixie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:25:29 +0000

if you see your name below more than twice, please go to a web browser and
read <http://www.thementalmilitia.com/wiki/Yammerhead> and consider more
carefully the effect you're having on us bystanders.  i CANNOT keep up and
so i'm just refiling it all.  one carefully considered essay-style message
per person per day would be difficult enough, but i would at least try.
when it's back and forth back and forth i just don't care and won't try.
i am probably not alone.  when we later try to declare consensus then a lot
of folks will suddenly start reading again and we'll discover that we only
had a consensus among the top talkers.  PLEASE put a lid on it, gentlemen!

 10299  09/13 "W.C.A. Wijngaard  Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions - work-arou
 10300  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10301  09/13 Florian Weimer     Re: [dnsext] RFC 2142 and "organization's top 
 10302  09/13 [email-masked].  Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: No protocol cha
 10303  09/13 [email-masked].  Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: No protocol cha
 10304  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10305  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10306  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10307  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions - work-arou
 10308  09/13 Brian Dickson      [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts on the Gr
 10309  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10310  09/13 Brian Dickson      Re: [dnsext] DNAME with exceptions - work-arou
 10311  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10312  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts on th
 10313  09/13 Paul Hoffman       Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts on th
 10314  09/13 Tony Finch         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence - thoughts on th
 10315  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10316  09/13 Alex Bligh         Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot
 10317  09/13 Niall O'Reilly     Re: [dnsext] Name equivalence: Another no prot

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 22:44:26 +0000

in other circles, if your names -DOESNT_ show up, then you are clearly not
engaged and when you finally do have an opinion, its not worth sharing, since
the invested folks have already come to an agreement...   "The WG has already
decided..."

--bill (who sort of agrees with Pauls snetiment, if not his means of expressing it)

---

From: Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:09:11 -0400

While the tone of the message below might be slightly offensive, the 
sentiment is exactly right, fewer but more thoughtful messages work better.

Remember that this is a world wide list, thus a certain percentage of 
valued members of the list is sleeping at any given moment,
they should be granted the courtesy of being able to chime in before any 
one person sends multiple messages on a topic.

  	Olafur

On 13/09/2010 6:25 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> read<http://www.thementalmilitia.com/wiki/Yammerhead>  and consider more

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:48:54 -0400

I think the real problem here is that the requirements being asserted are
both ambiguous and inconsistent.

One way to possibly demonstrate this would be to draw up a matrix with the
list of proposals raised and objections raised on the two axes.

I think it will be found that several of the objections raised of the form
'that will not work because' will be found to exclude absolutely every one
of the proposals raised.

If those objections are excluded from the matrix the problem is solvable,
albeit not in a timescale that will be acceptable to some.

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/