On Wed, 3 Sep 2008, Danny McPherson wrote:
> Dean, I'm not going to argue this point by point with you, I simply
> provided data points on what folks who do this as part of their day
> job have observed and reported. You can choose to accept this, or
> not.
I choose to report on why this data is not credible and should not be
accepted by the DNSOP WG.
> >> No, there's quite a wide distribution of responses, but mostly *OG
> >> types in various regions.
> >
> > Ahh. Figured as much.
>
> Out of curiosity, who do you believe should respond to a security
> operations surveys - beyond those in security ops positions, that is?
Perhaps a reasonable spectrum of the internet service providers, rather
than a selection of discredited operations staff. NANOG does not
represent such a spectrum, but it rather a very tiny minority. Most
people who attend NANOG never return:
2 in 3 never returned after 2 meetings
4 in 5 never returned after 3 meetings
7 in 8 never returned after 4 meetings
9 in 10 never returned after 5 meetings
One can see a pattern developing. However, after about eight to ten
meetings things change. By ten meetings there is an solid core of about
200 or so people who continue come to meeting after meeting after
meeting, and attendence of this core group drops off much more slowly.
These 200 people have overseen a lot of bad things: Telling operations
staff for example that the ECPA doesn't apply to network operators (so
that they would reveal spam traffic information to MAPS), telling them
that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act didn't apply to ISPs. Indeed,
most of the people documented on IADL.ORG were NANOG participants when
they did their discredited acts.
Anticipating what you argue below, NANOG indeed maintains editorial
control of its mailing list, and has silenced myself (for asserting
correctly that the above laws apply to ISPs and for publishing 3rd party
statistics critical of SORBS and for disputing Anycast claims); NANOG
silenced Jay Ashworth (for arguing that NANOG was appropriate for
emergency coordination after a hurricane), and NANOG silenced Richard
Steenbergen (for reasons unknown to me). What NANOG filters is what
really discredits as a reputable source.
> I've been to twice as many IETF meetings, and here, just like there,
> I've learned over the years that there's cruft everywhere and the key
> is being able to apply appropriate filters based on one's personal
> experiences and opinions.
The difference is that as a senior core member of NANOG, NANOG's
disreputable activities reflect on you and discredit its surveys and
reports. NANOG doesn't reflect the ISPs of North America, as shown by
the 3000 or so members of ARIN versus the small number of core NANOG
participants.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
