On Sep 3, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Dean Anderson wrote: > > I choose to report on why this data is not credible and should not be > accepted by the DNSOP WG.
I believe the WG has heard your position: "There has been no further discussion of these attacks since the two very small motivating attacks were discussed on NANOG some time ago. I don't see any evidence that there have been more than two such attacks." You don't see any evidence of attacks because you haven't read about them on NANOG ["or various network forums that you do monitor"] - duly noted, and comically ironic. > 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. This survey has nothing to do with NANOG, and it's not in any way supported or executed by NANOG. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this when I responded to your initial query as such: "No, there's quite a wide distribution of responses, but mostly *OG types in various regions." I'm tempted to take your bait and take offense to your comments above, but instead, will get back doing something productive as my points have been made. Done wasting bandwidth on this discussion here, -danny _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
