Appeal to Authority (was: Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-05.txt)

On 8/4/2021 8:41 PM, John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Dave Crocker  <[email protected]> said:
>> This has changes intended to cover the existing use of the field.
>>
>> For covenience, consider:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-email-deliveredto-05
> 
> It still is missing the point. The thing in the Delivered-To line is a
> token, which usually is not an address or a mailbox, even though it
> might look like one. The draft refers to "include each address
> that led to the final delivery" or "Delivering the same message more
> than once to the same address" or "The header field contains information about the
> individual mailbox" but the thing in the header isn't an address or a mailbox.
> 
> I still don't see any reason to claim this is an experiment. We have
> 20 years of experience with Delivered-To. It seenm unlikely that
> anyone plans to change the way they do or do not add the header at
> this point.
> 
> Once again, a survey of existing practice could be useful.


John,

You are persisting in your attempt to avoid the use of detailed 
technical information.  Instead you are repeatedly invoking an appeal to 
authority, posing yourself as the authority.  You are repeatedly making 
firm assertions of definitive, dismissive conclusions, without showing 
your work.

So far, however, the data that have been provided do not substantiate 
your dismissive views.

On the other hand, since your conclusions make clear that you view 
yourself as having definitive knowledge about objective truth, here, it 
should not be difficult for you to document the factual basis for your 
conclusions.  And yet, for some reason, you have not done so, in spite 
of repeated requests.

I note that you were a solid supporter of this draft, notably changing 
only after you got some (frankly, very mild) pushback on 1 August.  I'm 
sure that's merely coincidental.  I'm equally sure that you would not be 
motivated by such pettiness.  Still, it's an unfortunate linkage.

What is more unfortunate is your persistent effort to attempt 
intimidation rather than constructive participation.  Bullying is a 
hallmark of insecurity.  This particular style of bullying is one that 
the IETF not only fails to deal with, but frankly rewards.  That, of 
course, is worse than unfortunate, since it encourages others to keep 
away and damages the quality of the work done in the IETF.

As for the last line of your above posting, you are encouraged to use 
your extensive knowledge on this topic and to produce that survey. 
Given the strength of your views about the header field, it won't take 
you much time.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net