Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Request for IETF69 DNSOP Agenda Items

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:40:31 -0400

At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:45:25 -0400 (EDT), Dean Anderson wrote:
> 
> I would like to have the WG discuss taking up my draft 
> (draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status) as a WG document.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 		--Dean

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

  Per Dean's request, I asked those WG participants who were present
  at the Chicago meeting two questions:

  Q1) How many had read Dean's draft?

  A1) 12 people claimed to have read Dean's draft.

  Q2) Of those who had read Dean's draft, how many supported adoption as
      of Dean's draft as a WG document instead of
      draft-ietf-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations

  A2) Nobody present in the room supported adoption of Dean's draft.

  As with any decision made at a face to face meeting this is not
  official until confirmed on the mailing list.  So if there is anyone
  who:

  1) Has read Dean's draft, and

  2) Supports WG adoption of Dean's draft,

  please speak up.  The chairs will assume that Dean himself has read
  and supports his own draft.  Anybody else?

  Silence will be taken as confirmation of the tentitive decision from
  the face to face meeting, as will off-topic postings.  So if you
  want the WG to adopt this draft, please say so calmly and
  distinctly.

  Cut-off for this confirmation call will be 00:00:00 UTC on 19 August
  2007.  This is longer than I would ordinarily wait for a
  confirmation call, but many people take holidays in August, and Dean
  has done the right thing here by offering the WG an alternative
  draft for consideration rather than just complaining about the draft
  that he opposes, so I want to make sure that Dean's alternative
  draft gets a fair chance.

</hat>

_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:40:31 -0400

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:43:29 -0400

[Resending with fixed subject line, sorry for the duplication --sra]

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 22:43:29 -0400

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:33:18 -0400 (EDT)

Would it be too much to ask the 12 people who read the draft, what 
problems they have with the draft?

What changes would be necessary to obtain support?

Thanks,

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:33:18 -0400 (EDT)

Thanks,

		--Dean

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:00:36 -0400

Dear colleagues,

> What changes would be necessary to obtain support?

<hat="none">
I have read the draft.  Dean, do you solicit my feedback as to what
changes would be necessary to obtain my (individual) support?  If so,
I will send those remarks.
</hat>

<hat="draft editor">
I note that I asked explicitly about two sets of remarks from the
-anderson- draft that the current editors thought were possible
candidates for inclusion in the current working group draft, and
received no feedback in the meeting for such inclusion.
</hat>

Best regards,

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
                                        +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 19:00:36 -0400

Dear colleagues,

<hat="none">

<hat="draft editor">

Best regards,

A

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:25:58 -0400 (EDT)

> I will send those remarks.

Yes, thanks.

	--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:25:58 -0400 (EDT)

Yes, thanks.

	--Dean

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:45:11 -0400

Dear colleagues,

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 03:25:58PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> > Dean, do you solicit my feedback as to what

Here are my remarks, as requested.  Before beginning, I want to
emphasise that these are my personal views on the draft in question: I
do not make these remarks as editor of any document, including the
current working group reverse mapping draft.  

The question is what would be necessary for me to support adopting
draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status-00 as a Working Group document.  I
do not support doing so at present, for several reasons.

First, the WG has already a work item on the topic of reverse
mappings, and has a candidate draft to deal with the topic.  Since the
WG has spent a fair amount of time on that document, all the editorial
work that it has undergone would be wasted, and would have to be
re-done on the -anderson- draft.  That seems like a waste of the
investment we've made.  It is up to others, I emphasize, to judge whether
the current WG draft reflects the views of the WG; I am not willing to
speculate on that topic in this mail or other mails in this thread.
My argument here is not that one text is better than another; but
that, all things considered, the more mature text is the one to be
preferred for WG effort, assuming we are going to adopt any text on a
given topic.

Supposing there were no existing WG draft, however, there are some
additional matters in the -anderson- draft that would need to be
addressed before I could contemplate offering support for it.  To
begin with, the language is strangely charged in a number of cases.
For example, there is this passage from section 1:

   Facts have been obscured by advocacy and false assumptions.
   Consequently, myths have developed regarding the notion of proper
   use of reverse DNS records, and what reverse mapping information
   reasonably means outside of the organization providing the data.

There are also several places in the document where a statement is
introduced by "Myth:" or "Fact:".  The style makes for an arresting
initial effect, but I'm not convinced that the message is any clearer
for it.  It also seems to manufacture controversy where none exists:
some of the "Myths" are propositions that I've never heard anyone
assert.  In such cases, at least more evidence is needed.  Generally
speaking, I think the document would need to be much more neutral in
its treatment of the topic than it currently is in order to be a draft
of the Working Group.

In the same way, I think there is altogether too much
damn-the-torpedos certainty in the document.  The text, on my reading,
describes issues in black and white where, in my view, there are many
shades of gray.  For instance, we have this:

   Fact: There is no justification for this conclusion.  When pressed
   for a reason, advocates say that one is entitled to make decisions
   without justification because they have "incomplete information".
   There is nothing about imcomplete information that justifies
   irrational or capricous decision making.  Every scientific experiment
   and every court case involves conclusions and decisions based on
   incomplete information.  There are legitimate methods of making
   decisions with incomplete information.  No scientific or judicial
   method involves an entitlement to act irrationally or capriciously.
   Legitimate methods do not depend on false assumptions, particularly
   those with security and trust implications.

Bombastic assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning do not an
argument make.  Repeating that a course of action is irrational
doesn't prove that it is.  Reasonable and competent experts in the
field sometimes have differences of opinion about this topic; there is
nothing wrong with that, but the current text is too busy grinding
axes to note as much -- or even that there is an RFC recommending that
matching forward and reverse DNS data be used for qualifying email for
acceptance.  Moreover, the analogy doesn't even hold up: the histories
of both science and jurisprudence are filled with irrational and
capricious decision making.  For example, we now know that Kepler
faked his data, that Wegener was laughed at and derided by his
geologist colleagues, and that the Scott v Sanford decision of the US
Supreme Court was not a masterwork of balance and care.

On similar ground, I think that the RFC 2119 words should be taken out
of the document.  Even if you think that such words belong in BCPs --
and I'm not convinced -- it's unclear that they belong in a document
on this topic, where there are so many areas of disagreement among
competent operators.

It is also not plain to me exactly what the document is about: is it
about the reverse mapping feature of DNS, or about how to achieve an
end similar to what reverse mapping was intended to do?  I believe all
the discussion of RFC1788 should be removed, because it's distracting
in the context.  Alternatively, the whole document should be rewritten
as "ICMP Domain Name Messages Considered Beneficial", and turned into
an argument for that protocol.

Each of these would, to me, be individually a reason not to adopt the
document as a WG draft without assurances that the issue would be
repaired.  Together, I think they make the document in its current
form a poor candidate for adoption.

Best regards,
Andrew

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:45:11 -0400

Dear colleagues,

Best regards,
Andrew

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:48:51 -0700

> received no feedback in the meeting for such inclusion.

In lieu of searching the minutes for them, perhaps you could repeat
them?

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Why settle for the lesser evil?	 https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:48:51 -0700

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:28:51 -0400

> In lieu of searching the minutes for them, perhaps you could repeat

Sure.  They're both on slide 8 from the Chicago meeting.  The first
was whether we ought to include references to RFC 1788, noting that
there were alternative proposals for how to do this.  Nobody came
forward in support of this idea, and some people mentioned explicitly
that they thought it irrelevant.  (My own opinion is also that it's
irrelevant, but this is a WG draft and I'm happy to be overruled.)

The other was a bit of text lifted from section 3.6  of the -anderson-
draft, which says this:

       Delegate all addresses in block.  Do not assume that everyone
       uses ethernet.

I suggested that this was a clearer and starker statement of the
principle than was anywhere in the current WG draft, and so it might
be included.  There is language in the WG draft to this effect,
however.  Nobody came forward in support of this proposal either.

Best regards,

A

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:28:51 -0400

Best regards,

A

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:03:22 -0700

> irrelevant, but this is a WG draft and I'm happy to be overruled.)

I think that experiment is old enough (and still experimental) that
to provide guidance in that direction may be a bum steer.

So, I say leave it out.

> however.  Nobody came forward in support of this proposal either.

The problem is possibly more complex than 'ethernet vs everything
else'.  Even with ethernet, someone may want ot name their network
or broadcast.

I'm thinking of 9 years ago, when I encountered a problem with using
the first addresses in a network delegated as a dynamic pool to dial
access equipment (so, PPP).  I'm getting old now, but I vaguely
remember;

  x.y.z.0/20-or-so was routed to null0 on the routers so that they
	would produce ICMP unreachables (the dial access gear
	wouldn't, they'd pass it back to the default router!).
	These statics were redistributed into the IGP.

  x.y.z.0/32 was advertised by dial access equipment via RIP, which
	carried static assignments as well as dynamic.

We discovered (during my 5am shift) that, with the routers we were
using, we could not hold a more specific RIP route on the same
division as a statically held route redistributed into our IGP.
Something about having the same "name", but I really am getting too
old to remember this point with any clarity.

My rather long winded point here is, there are a lot of strange
things in networks we can't and shouldn't presuppose.  To get into
them is a hairball.  To overly simplify it to the point of admonishing
assumptions about ethernet is disingenuous, or at least incomplete.

So, I say keep or simplify the existing text.

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:03:22 -0700

So, I say leave it out.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT)

Inline

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> re-done on the -anderson- draft.

There is no waste. Those efforts culminated in my draft, and your draft.  
If it weren't for those discussions, I wouldn't have written my draft.
If your draft is true and accurate, it can still go forward.  (I don't
think it is, but I'm just one person, though I don't think I'm alone in
opposing your (Sullivan's) draft).  I think Sullivan's document has
moved off the topic of reverse status, and has essentially gone back to
the ~2000 topic in the in-addr-required draft, advocating a specific
kind of reverse mapping use. 

By contrast, my (Anderson's) draft is looking to document just the
status: what we know for sure. I'm not advocating.  Particularly, I'm
not advocating that in-addr is required.  I'm stating that in-addr isn't
required; its just useful in some cases, and those cases depend on the
purpose of the site creating the records.  Kevin Darcy has an
interesting use of PTR records at DaimlerChrysler.  My draft just states
the true status that no RFC states he has to use a certain kind of
scheme. Darcy, and anyone, can invent whatever scheme they find useful.

>    reasonably means outside of the organization providing the data.

"Strangely charged" seems to assert there has been no controversy over
these topics.  7 years of discussion on the DNSOP WG; renamed drafts
because the title was too controversial, etc represent a lot of
controversy. Outside the IETF, there is also a lot of controversy about
the "proper" use of reverse mapping.  It is a given that the topic has
been controversial.

> assert.

Then you have no dispute with the fact that those myth propositions are
wrong.  In fact I've heard each of those myths in various forms and
contexts.  However, the important feature is that the myths are false.  
It doesn't matter that you've never heard them. I've never heard of
internet hunting either, but 33 states have banned the practice.  One
doesn't have to wait until someone actually does something wrong, before
saying that it is wrong.

> In such cases, at least more evidence is needed.  Generally speaking,
> I think the document would need to be much more neutral in its
> treatment of the topic than it currently is in order to be a draft of
> the Working Group.

You seem to have a strange sense of 'neutral'.  Neutral like the
'in-addr-required' drafts?  Facts are always neutral.  Advocacy is not
neutral.

> shades of gray.

Lets remember the myth the cited fact is exposing as false:

   Myth: Hosts with matching forward and reverse mappings are more
   trustworthy.

No one, including Andrew Sullivan, has ever provided any scientific
justification for this claim. A paper and software by Wietse Venema was
previously cited as the source of this claim. However, Dr. Venema has
stated that he did not intend to make such a claim in his paper on TCP
wrappers, and that his paper and software should not be interpreted as
originating this claim.  So the fact (quoted below) is correct.

> For instance, we have this:
> 
> argument make.  

Actually, assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning are exactly
what make up a valid argument. Correct assertions about scientific and
judicial reasoning do have weight.  Incorrect assertions about reasoning
are discredited. Bombast (the term means pretentious and wordy) has no
bearing on correctness and validity

> Repeating that a course of action is irrational doesn't prove that it
> is.

Well, of course repetition has no bearing on anything.  But the onus is
on you (the author of the original claim, and person disputing my
assertion of lack of rational basis for the original claim) to prove the
original claim rational.  The original claim has been argued
extensively, and no one has ever given a rational basis. The failure to
do so is a fact that can be cited.

You do agree that decisions that aren't based on reason and rational
bases are, by definition, unsound?

A course of action is rational when there are valid, true, reasons that
support that course, and it is irrational when there are no reasons;  
when the assumed-true statements are known to be false.  This is not
bombastic, and in it is indeed a valid argument criticizing those who
claim they need no reasons for their views.

But, importantly, the fact stated in my draft is fact, and is true.  
You need to show some facts that make your original claim rational.  
Otherwise, it is irrational.

> on this topic, where there are so many areas of disagreement among

(Hmm. You asserted there was no controversy above)

This is a repeat of a prior criticism that I think was adequately
addressed.  As I responded, then: I've found other BCPs that contain
those terms, and the RFC editor has not commented or ruled that BCPs
cannot have such terms.  I sent a list of such RFCs previously to the
DNSOP list.

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/current/msg05387.html

In fact, you continue to repeat the criticism even after there has been
a demonstration that your claim that the don't belong in a BCP is
incorrect.

The second assertion, that RFC2119 terms don't belong where there is
controversy, is also incorrect.  I have only used these terms in the
Security Considerations section. I don't think there is credible
controvery over these recommendations:

4.  Security Considerations

   DNS PTR records are entirely optional, and MUST NOT be assumed to
   exist.  Software MUST NOT fail or incur delay as a result of the non-
   existance of PTR records.

   Unauthenticated DNS MUST NOT be relied on for security or trust
   decisions.  Even when DNSSEC is used to verify the authenticity of
   DNS records, matching reverse and forward records do not imply either
   improved security or trustworthiness over sites that either do not
   have reverse DNS or that do not have matching foward/reverse DNS.

   DNS records MUST NOT be used in logs instead of IP addresses.
   Logging only the PTR resource records instead of the IP address is
   vulnerable to attack, since attackers may control the name, and may
   also use long names that will either become truncated by the logging
   system, or require upto 255 bytes to store.  Logging both IP address
   and DNS PTR records may be helpful but one must also consider that
   the 255 byte per record space requirement does not become a DOS
   attack on the logging system.

Wherever these recommendations have not been followed, security
vulnerabilities have been found.  The only cases were these
recommendations wouldn't apply are the cases where security
considerations aren't a concern.  So they are appropriately qualified,
and are always true.

> an argument for that protocol.

The purpose the draft is to give a status report on the facts as we know
them at present: on how to find the reverse mapping of a host, and what
reverse mapping data means to various parties. That is why RFC1788 et al
are relevant: they provide means to find the reverse mapping of a host.  
David Hankin said something about RFC1788 being an old experiment. It is
true, that 1788 is pretty old. However RFC4620 is pretty new, and is
along the same lines only for IPv6.  It is good to let people know about
RFC1788, as well.

My draft discredits those who assert myths about reverse DNS, and
informs those who want to know what's out there for reverse mapping.

I'll have to review 'bombastic'. Bombastic means pretentious or wordy.  
If you have some examples of pretentious words or unnecessary wordiness,
I'd appreciate the suggested rewording.  I don't agree the cited example
was bombastic or unnecessarilly wordy, but if you have a specific
rewrite in mind, I'll consider it.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15:47:30 -0400 (EDT)

Inline

		--Dean

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:48:19 -0400

Dear colleagues (Dean especially),

> If it weren't for those discussions, I wouldn't have written my draft.

[. . .]

I don't want to spend too much more time on this thread, because I
think it will probably not do anything more than re-hash previous
arguments.  This will be my last post in this thread.  As previously
in this thread, I want to emphasise that I am discussing my personal
views, and not my views as editor of any document.

I have read Dean's comments, and I believe they reveal that Dean and I
have fundamentally different ideas about reasoning and knowlege.  My
view is that there are vast areas of human experience in which
knowledge is not well-defined as "justified true belief".  I believe
that I am in the mainstream of contemporary epistemology in this
view. And this view is what underpins my critique of the proposed
-anderson- draft: I think it too often dresses up as certain truth
propositions about which competent practitioners of the art sometimes
disagree.  I think that competent practitioners can disagree, and that
a document that purports to offer advice about current practices
should outline how those disagreements might have practical effects.
I believe there is a current working group document on reverse mapping
that offers exactly such an outline.

I do, however, have to take special issue with one claim Dean Anderson
makes, because it's a particularly pernicious form of scientism, and
one that I think must not be left unchallenged.
 
> what make up a valid argument. 

A valid argument is merely an argument whose premises, if true, would
entail the conclusion.  The validity of an argument is classically
entirely unrelated to the truth of its premises or conclusion.  For
instance:

P1. If you gerwuffle, then you blort.
P2. But you do not blort
C.  Therefore, you do not gerwuffle.

is a valid argument (on the grounds that it denies the consequent --
often called _modus tollens_).  I have no idea whether the conclusion
or any premise is true, because I don't know what "gerwuffle" and
"blort" mean.  But I am sure the argument is nevertheless valid.  I
also note that the argument has nothing to do with scientific or
juducial reasoning.

I'll also observe in passing that the issue of RFC 2119 words in any
document on this topic is, I suspect, a matter of taste and current
practice.  I think they don't belong in BCPs, except very rarely.
That there are BCPs that happen to include such language is therefore
irrelevant.  I don't think they are used appropriately in the
-anderson- draft, but I also think that's a meta-discussion that
perhaps needs to be taken up with the author of
draft-peterson-informational-normativity-00.

Best regards,

Andrew

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:48:19 -0400

[. . .]

 

Best regards,

Andrew

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:45:08 -0400 (EDT)

This has developed into a debate on the merits of Sullivan's document
draft-dnsop-reverse-mapping-considerations and my (Anderson's) document
draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status.

Inline:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> have fundamentally different ideas about reasoning and knowlege. 

That much is clear.  I (Anderson) follow the scientific method.  This is
the mainstream view of civilization for the pursuit of science and
engineering.

> My view is that there are vast areas of human experience in which
> knowledge is not well-defined as "justified true belief".

This is all well and good for religion and politics. It is not the case
for scientific inquiry and engineering.  In the fields of science and
engineering, we are concerned with facts and reasoning.

> I believe that I am in the mainstream of contemporary epistemology in
> this view.

Unless you consider the mainstream to be represented by "intelligent
design", you are not in the mainstream.

> And this view is what underpins my critique of the proposed -anderson-
> draft: I think it too often dresses up as certain truth propositions
> about which competent practitioners of the art sometimes disagree.

Competency is the ability to give facts. Credibility relates to the
veracity or truth of the facts given. Telecom, like most industries, is
organized into science, engineering, and craft. Skills and competency as
a craftsman do not always translate into skills and competency as an
engineer, particularly when that person doesn't accept the scientific
method as the means of conducting science and engineering, and proposes
to replace the analysis of facts and logic by nothing but fervent
belief.

If the argument isn't based in fact and reason, then it is hard to
consider one making such irrational argument as a competent and credible
practitioner of any subject that is categorized as 'science and
engineering'.  Indeed, certainly they are not a credible practitioner of
science and engineering.  Regardless of their title as "engineer", they
are not performing or producing anything that could be categorized as
'science and engineering'.

The only objections to the statements of fact in my (Anderson's)  
document have been of 'fervent opinion', not contrary fact. 

In contrast, Sullivan's document is marked by false claims made vague
and ambiguous.

> I think that competent practitioners can disagree, and that a document
> that purports to offer advice about current practices should outline
> how those disagreements might have practical effects.

Competent practitioner's can't disagree without evidence and facts
supporting their views. "Fervent belief" is not a competent or
credible basis for disagreement. The label of "Opinion" only applies
to those things which _can't_ be proven true or false.  Offering up
views as 'opinion' which have been proven false is not something a
competent, credible engineer would ever do. Offering up as 'fact' claims
which haven't been proven true is also something that a competent,
credible engineer wouldn't do.

Competent and credible practitioner's can certainly disagree about
speculation, opinion, and even facts. Disagreement often spurs further
inquiry.  However, they can't substitute opinion and fervent belief for
fact, and they can't dismiss objections to their unsubstantiated claims
as mere disagreement.

> that offers exactly such an outline.

Sullivan's document offers views that aren't based in fact, and obscures
facts known to be true and claims known to be false;  causing a
reasonable, but uninformed person to impute as fact things that actually
aren't fact, but are even known to be false. Sullivan's document
misleads readers.

> > Actually, assertions about scientific and judicial reasoning are
> > exactly what make up a valid argument.
> 
> entail the conclusion.

This statement is true of the logic of the argument. The argument is
logically valid when the premises, if true, would entail the conclusion.

> The validity of an argument is classically entirely unrelated to the
> truth of its premises or conclusion.  For instance:

The "classically" has nothing to do with it.  It isn't the case that
'once we used logic, and now we don't.' You are confusing logical
validity with soundness.  Let me give you some definitions, from a
course I took in Logical Analysis by Dr. Leroy Meyer.

Valid Argument: Premises imply the conclusions 

Sound Argument: Valid with actually true premises.

An unsound argument is a kind of fallacy.

> I have no idea whether the conclusion or any premise is true, because
> I don't know what "gerwuffle" and "blort" mean.  But I am sure the
> argument is nevertheless valid.

Yes. It is valid, but possibly unsound.

> I also note that the argument has nothing to do with scientific or
> juducial reasoning.

Your statement is incorrect. Indeed, logic has a _lot_ to do with
scientific and judicial reasoning.  These fields use logic, and add to
logical inferences the results of testing for which premises are
actually true, and therefore discover which conclusions are not
fallacies. Of course, logically invalid arguments are also fallacies.

> practice.

I'm glad to see that you have changed your mind.  We finally agree on
this.

> irrelevant.

Wrong again. This fact was relevant to your prior claim that such
language never belongs in a BCP.

> I don't think they are used appropriately in the -anderson- draft,

There, we disagree. I only use these terms in the Security
Considerations section, where such use is recommended.  You still have
provided no contrary facts---that is, no competent and credible
disagreement to the statements in the Security Considerations section.  
You simply object to clear statements of fact that contrast with the
vaguely contrary statements in your document.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:45:08 -0400 (EDT)

Inline:

		--Dean

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:05:10 -0400

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

  The 19 August cut-off having passed, and having seen no support for
  WG adoption of draft-anderson-reverse-dns-status from anyone but the
  draft's author, the Chicago decision not to adopt the draft stands.

</hat>

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:05:10 -0400

<hat wg-co-chair="on">

</hat>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:27:16 -0400 (EDT)

Thank you all for your time and consideration.  I'll see about
publishing this document somewhere else.

		--Dean

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:27:16 -0400 (EDT)

--Dean