Re: [EDDI] code of conduct

Hi,

I don't think this message is very productive, but I do think it's worth
preserving.

To that end, I've CCed www-archive@w3.org.

thanks,
Rob


On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:35 AM Paul Vixie <vixie@fsi.io> wrote:

> open letter to rob sayre, with restatement of vixie's position at the
> ending:
>
> i'd previously thought that your objection to my clarification did not
> require
> a response. when i saw this from barbara, i hoped things would die down so
> again i did not add my +1:
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:45 AM STARK, BARBARA H <bs7652@att.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jason and others leading the EDDI effort,
> >
> > I notice there is no code of conduct posted for EDDI – just “legal and
> > privacy”.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I’m thinking we need one – even if it just points to the
> > one used by IETF.
> >
> > Barbara
>
> today i saw this from you, which must finally draw some response from me
> both
> to this message and to the up-thread objection which i had previously
> ignored:
>
> On Thursday, 21 November 2019 07:27:26 UTC Rob Sayre wrote:
> > Hi Barbara,
> >
> > I took some time to think about this email. Upon reflection, I don't
> think
> > it's reasonable. In another message, you seemed to suggest that I made an
> > ad-hominem attack of some sort. There are two Ericsson drafts I disagree
> > with, but that disagreement centers on the substance of the documents. If
> > you look through archives of the list, you'll find a lot of
> > more-inflammatory content from many other senders. I think this is OK,
> and
> > builds understanding, even if it doesn't resolve disagreements.
> >
> > I haven't called anyone an "Internet Villain". :)
> >
> > thanks,
> > Rob
>
> so, looking just-upthread from barbara's response you see rob's answer to
> my
> clarification about jari's actual affiliation. this is the message i am
> responding to now, after having been convinced by the messages shown above
> that such a response was required after all:
>
> > *From:* *On Behalf Of* Rob Sayre
> > *Sent:* Thursday, November 14, 2019 5:16 AM
> > *To:* ENCRYPTED-DNS@LISTS.ENCRYPTED-DNS.ORG
> > *Subject:* Re: [EDDI] The Importance of Decentralisation
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:11 AM Paul Vixie <vixie@fsi.io> wrote:
> > > any commentary related to centralization should be applied to anycast
> > > rdns itself, regardless of whether DoH is used to reach it.
> >
> > Rob Sayre wrote on 2019-11-12 17:21:
> > > True. I've also been wondering why various Ericsson employees are
> > > producing such commentary.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 8:07 PM Paul Vixie <vixie@fsi.io> wrote:
> > > jari arrko (https://arkko.com/)
> > > is clearly speaking as a long time participant and former chair of the
> > > ietf, rather than as an employee or representative of ericsson.
> >
> > [actual text from rob on 14-nov]
> > That's not strictly true, since the affiliation is right there on the
> > draft. I also don't see why "long time participant and former chair of
> the
> > ietf" would be in conflict with being an Ericsson employee, for better or
> > worse. I also saw this draft:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mglt-abcd-doh-privacy-analysis/>
> >
> > I personally didn't find either of them very enlightening, but I think
> > it's good to share information and discuss the technical details.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Rob
>
> first, please note that i have de-obfuscated the proofpoint gateway damage
> that had cluttered the reply. i have also corrected the indentation levels
> so
> as to clarify exactly who was saying exactly what, and when they did so.
>
> second, your finding of "not very enlightening" was an ad-hominem fallacy,
> distracting from your arguments while adding nothing, and i understand the
> way
> barbara responded to it. i chose at the time not to add my +1. "well, here
> i
> am."
>
> third, your finding of "no conflict" was an amiguiity fallacy as well as a
> straw man fallacy. i didn't say there was conflict. indeed, it's entirely
> possible that ericsson agrees with this particular document written by
> jari.
> however, that's irrelevant. in the ietf we speak for our persons not our
> employers. and so it's equally possible (and equally irrelevant if true)
> that
> ericsson thinks jari is flat wrong about these topics.
>
> you wanted to know "why various Ericsson employees are producing such
> commentary" and i answered you: "jari arrko is clearly speaking as a long
> time
> participant and former chair of the ietf, rather than as an employee or
> representative of ericsson." your later answer attempts counter-argument
> but
> uses two fallacies (ambiguity and straw man) to do so, and a third fallacy
> (ad-hominem) to contextualize your remarks.
>
> fourth, i was not planning to make an issue of your unprofessional
> approach,
> but barbara certainly has standing to do so, and your dismissal of her
> request
> for assistance from the moderators is completely out of line.
>
> --
>
> fifth and finally, let's get better at communication before we all meet up
> in
> london 6, please. we have lost sight of my original observations by
> dealing
> with this meta-carnage. those observations were:
>
> DoH only matters because it makes possible the use of third party name
> service
> even if that is in explicit disregard to on-path actors (such as operators
> of
> managed private networks). DoH is part of something larger, which includes
> anycast RDNS. that larger thing is the war for control of DNS resolution
> --
> that is, who will control the way DNS is used. the web's principle funding
> comes from actors who need to track, predict, and control user experience.
> we
> should be talking about the war and perhaps the actors and motives, not
> the
> tools of the moment.
>
> or we should skip all that and talk about encrypting DNS without saying
> why,
> without distinguishing the actors and motives which benefit more from one
> approach than another (DoT and DoH being candidate approaches). but if
> we're
> going to do that we're going to have to avoid talking about anycast
> (so-called
> "public") DNS as well. i can do this if the moderators want it that way.
>
> but in no case should we talk about DoH without including so-called
> "public"
> DNS in the conversation, because tools have actors and actors have motives.
>
> --
> Vixie
>
>
>