Dean,
It is unclear to me from your text below whether you are formally appealing
a decision of the working group relating to the consensus call arising from
the last call of this document, or whether you are appealing a subsequent
decision or action of the Area Director, David Kessens, or some other
decision or action of the IESG.
I note that in this thread of messages the Chair of the IETF, Brian
Carpenter, has made the comment that " if it is a WG decision you should be
appealing to the WG chairs first."
Here I will limit my response here to address strictly the interpretation
of your note that you are formally appealing a WG decision to the Working
Group chair.
The procedural basis of my response is drawn from RFC 2026
6.5.1 Working Group Disputes
[...]
A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working
Group as a whole) in the discussion.
I have used the following considerations in reviewing your appeal
1. If you are appealing a decision of the GROW WG chairs in declaring a
working group rough consensus to advance the document to the IESG for
publication as a BCP in December of 2005, then I note from RFC2026:
6.5.4 Appeals Procedure
All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
facts of the dispute.
All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
I note that more than 2 months have elapsed since this decision was taken
in the context of the Working Group and the chairs' judgement of WG
consensus with the Working Group Last Call of this document to be passed to
the IESG with a recommendation for publication as a BCP.
2. I note from your posting to the working on the 2nd December 2005
(http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html) that you indicated
to the working group that " But the Chairs see a consensus, and I'm not
disputing their judgement."
3. The working group last call
(http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00424.html,
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00429.html)
and the working group postings during the last call:
<http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html
http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00427.html
<http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00428.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00428.html
http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00430.html
<http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00431.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00431.html
http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00432.html
<http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00433.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00433.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00449.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00460.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00461.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00463.html
Indicate that while you had a difference of opinion with parts of the
document, there was a general level of support for the document moving
forward and that there were no other working group members who supported
your stated position.
On that basis I conclude that the working group last call was conducted
appropriately and the judgement call by the chairs of rough consensus to
proceed with a publication request was made in good faith and according to
the overall desires of the working group as a whole.
I therefore conclude from these considerations that if your note represents
a formal appeal of a working group chair decision made in December 2005,
then, on the grounds that
(a) more than 2 months have elapsed since this action was taken by the
working group chairs,
(b) at the time you indicated to the working group that you were not
disputing this chairs' call of consensus over the last call of the document
to proceed to the IESG for publication review, and
(c) that the Working Group Last call was conducted in an appropriate manner
on the working group mailing list,
I see no basis for further action to be taken by the working group chair or
the working group in connection with the judgement of working group
consensus over the last call of this document and the passing of the
document to the IESG for publication review.
On the basis that you are appealing a Working Group action to the Working
Group chair, then, as Working Group chair, I see no grounds to sustain the
appeal, and formally advise you that your appeal to the Working Group Chair
is dismissed.
regards,
Geoff Huston
GROW WG Chair
cc: group working group mailing list,
O&M Area Director David Kessens,
IETF Chair, Brian Carpenter
IESG
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 07:22 AM 6/06/2006, Dean Anderson wrote:
Inline.
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Dean,
>
> Can you please state what decision you are appealing against?
I am appealing the Last Call, as should be plain from the text of my
message.
This is a working group dispute, and a process dispute, as documented in the
text of my message.
> It cannot be an IESG decision because no IESG decision has been made,
and if
> it is a WG decision you should be appealing to the WG chairs first.
I think the WG chairs are already aware of this. Moreover, David Kessens, the
Area Director for the Operations Area, is already aware of the fraud due
to his
prior involvement with the PR-Action Appeal. I note that Mr. Kessens already
stands accused of impropriety and personal involvement in the matter of the
scientific fraud. As does Mr. Carpenter.
> I will not ask the IESG to consider your appeal unless you clarify this.
I think that since Mr. Carpenter is also accused of impropriety on this
matter,
that Mr. Carpenter should recuse himself on this matter. Mr. Carpenter's
present intervention on charges of his own misconduct is further unethical
conduct.
> If you wish to register technical comments about this draft, please
formulate
> them as a response to the Last Call message, not as an appeal. They
will then
> be considered on the same basis as any other Last Call comments.
Such comments, as necessary to establish that a scientific fraud is involved,
have now been made. As the IESG can also see, Mr. Kessens has already (again)
made false and frivolous accusations of "disruption", despite the unethical
nature and established conflict of interest of his doing so. I think if there
were any question before regarding the ethics and impropriety of his
involvement, all doubt has now been erased. I ask the IESG to act
accordingly.
Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc
>
> Brian Carpenter
> IETF Chair
>
> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > I object to this document on the following grounds:
> >
> > Objections were made to the DNSOP WG regarding at least 6 problems
with the
> > document that were not addressed:
> >
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html
> > http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html
> >
> > There may be additional problems.
> >
> > The notion of a safe stateful anycast operation as asserted by Daniel
Karrenberg
> > (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/pdf/karrenberg.pdf) has now been
discredited.
> > Karrenberg's document misled people to believe that stateful anycast
was safe,
> > when in fact Karrenberg didn't perform any stateful testing whatsoever.
> >
> > So, there is no evidence that stateful anycast is safe, and
substantial evidence
> > that it is not safe: Mark Kosters reports on data gathered at J root:
> >
> > http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/pdf/kosters.pdf
> >
> > + Expected to see a saw tooth distribution .
> > instead have a noisy distribution in many cases
> > + Does not affect UDP
> > + DO NOT RUN Anycast with Stateful Transport
> >
> > http://www.rssac.org/meetings/04-08/2004WashDC.html
> > Kosters repeats warning on stateful DNS Anycast, but is disputed by
> > Karrenberg. It is later found (January, 2006) that Karrenberg has
done no
> > stateful testing whatsoever, and did not reveal that his testing was
only for
> > stateless DNS, and therefore irrelevant to Kosters data. This
discovery was
> > only made when Anderson examined the source code to the DNSMON
program written
> > by Karrenberg to conduct this testing.
> >
> > Stateful transport includes large UDP ENDSO packets which are required by
> > DNSSEC.
> >
> > The draft-ietf-grow-anycast document incorrectly gives the impression
that
> > stateful anycast is safe. This is a an incorrect conclusion based on
> > discredited research. Therefore this document should not be accepted for
> > technical reasons.
> >
> > DNS Anycast controversy and inappropriate behavior by officials during
> > discussion of this document gives rise to questions on both the
integrity of the
> > document, and questions as to whether all points of views have been
adequately
> > considered.
> >
> > To summarize the controvery: During discussion of this document and
the subject
> > of DNS Anycast and DNS Root Anycast, David Kessens, Area Director for the
> > Operations Area which includes DNSOP WG and the GROW WG, attempted to
conspire
> > with Brian Carpenter, David Crocker, and Susan Harris to improperly
silence
> > discussion of problems with DNS Anycast [and the same persons also
tried to
> > improperly silence questions regarding the integrity of an IETF spam
document
> > authored by Crocker]. Then 4 IESG members acted with conflicts of
interest in
> > violation of the ISOC and IETF charter and rules to silence
discussion of this
> > matter. An IAB appeal documents this inappropriate behavior. The IAB
has not yet
> > ruled on the matter.
> >
> > For example, during this time, Kessens asserted (incorrectly) that
DNS Root
> > server operations were off-topic for the DNSOP WG, and then
inappropriately
> > demanded that discussion of DNS Root Anycast on the DNSOP WG be halted.
> > Subsequently, it was proposed that DNSOP WG be re-chartered to remove
DNS root
> > server operations from its charter. Somewhat strangely, but
consistent with
> > other absurd allegations, Kessens et al refused to concede that DNS
Root Anycast
> > was presently on-topic for DNSOP WG. There are other allegations too
numerous to
> > fully list here. See http://www.iab.org/appeals/index.html "Appeal
Against IESG
> > PR-Action from Dean Anderson, 18 April 2006" for more information.
> >
> > As a result, my views have not been adequately presented or considered.
> >
> > An appeal is therefore registered under Section 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of
RFC 2026.
> >
> > Dean Anderson
> > Av8 Internet, Inc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have begun to collect a history of DNS Anycast at
> > http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/DNSRootAnycast/History.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, The IESG wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG to
> >>consider the following document:
> >>
> >>- 'Operation of Anycast Services '
> >> <draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt> as a BCP
> >>
> >>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> >>final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
> >>[email protected] or [email protected] mailing lists by 2006-06-16.
> >>
> >>The file can be obtained via
> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt
> >>
> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >>web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
> >>web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
