Subject: Re: (ngtrans) The reverse lookup issue

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:58:51 -0500

> You didn't offer any evidence that there is any meaning to such a state,
> except you and some others commonly make that assumption. That others make
> the same assumption isn't proof the assumption is true.

I personally use, and get value out of, ptr records in the in-addr.arpa 
domain.   This is my own personal experience.   You can't contradict this 
- I have observed it directly.   Maybe it doesn't match your experience, 
but it doesn't have to, because the argument you've made here attempts to 
disprove the premise that the system is useful.   The fact that quite a few 
people have stepped forward and said "I personally get real, meaningful 
benefit out of the system as it is" is sufficient to invalidate any 
argument that you make to the effect that "the system is not useful."

You make a second argument, where you attempt to prove that the system is 
incorrectly used as an authentication mechanism, and therefore should be 
eliminated so as to discourage this use.   Here, your statement is a 
positive one - you are trying to prove that something is true.   So your 
reason has to support your argument.   That is, you have to give evidence.
    Several people, including me, have asked you to say just who it is that 
is using the system as an authentication mechanism, and how prevalent this 
use is.   You have not done so.

Several of us have stipulated that if, for example, use of r-commands were 
still common, that would be a bad thing, and we'd want to discourage that,
  but none of us have seen any evidence that this is in fact so.   Indeed, I 
made a pretty basic statistical case for the idea that it actually *can't*
  be true - an argument against which you have presented no counterargument.
    So again, your argument fails to convince, in this case because you have 
not brought forth any evidence to support it, and you have not even 
attempted to invalidate any of the counterarguments that have been 
presented.

If you are just trying to convince yourself, that's fine, but you already 
know you are right, so you needn't argue about it in public.   If you are 
trying to convince *us*, you have to use arguments that actually have that 
effect.   And if you are just trying to vote, well, I know what your vote 
is now, and, barring some successful argument you or kre may make, you know 
mine also.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Doug Barton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:48:52 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Dean Anderson wrote:

> Ditto. You made objections about my objections, but you just restated that
> there is meaning to the state when reverse and forward match.

Several of us have stated that FOR US, there is meaning. Some of us are
even smart enough to know that the meaning is limited to certain scopes.
You obviously believe that there is no meaning whatsoever to reverse
records. I'm happy to acknowledge that for you that might be true, but I
think that enough people have disagreed with you at this point to show
that your point of view is far from universal.

> the same assumption isn't proof the assumption is true.

I alluded to some specific cases in my brief post, but I don't see any
point in providing further details because you've obviously made up your
mind.

Doug