I think possibly you may misunderstand the interest of the GROW WG in
this matter. The GROW WG document has been itself disputed for being
misleading and false (though not itself research), and being based on on
scientific fraud by Daniel Karrenberg. Karrenberg's document is
research.
I have no doubt that the draft proponents were hoping your research
would credit the draft, which is why Hitesh was asked to comment on
whether he thought the draft-ietf-grow-anycast document was misleading.
However, summarizing our discussion will be irrelevant to the business
of GROW WG, since its document is already out of its hands, and is being
disputed for being based on discredited research, and for itself being
misleading. Our discussion may be relevant to the ISOC Board of
Trustees, Cornell, the ACM, and the National Science Foundation and
other authorities. However, the GROW WG is not an authority on
scientific fraud.
Since your data does not support your results, your results are
falsified. You had notice of this dispute before your published your
results, so there is no chance of honest mistake. So, your research
claim is also fraudulent. Since other research claim is likewise
fraudulent, neither document seems to help them prove that the
draft-ietf-grow-anycast document isn't misleading.
Like your document, they have also falsely claimed an "affinity", though
they used the term "node selection". There is no basis for this
conclusion in your data or in Karrenberg's data.
--Dean
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Paul Francis wrote:
>
> Well, I was copying grow cause I'm sure that they are as interested as I am
> to get your data and concise summary of your arguments. But I'm happy to
> leave them off (after this email). After our back-and-forth, we can
> summarize our findings for them.
>
> PF
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:52 PM
> To: Paul Francis
> Cc: Hitesh Ballani; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: grow: WGLC for Operation of Anycast Services
> (draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt) (fwd)
>
> It is unclear to me why you keep adding the GROW WG list to your responses.
> Our discussion seems to have little to do with any current business of the
> GROW WG. The GROW WG has approved a document which was previously rejected
> by the DNSOP WG because people realized that stateful Anycast was impossible.
> [see discussion relating to the draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid document on DNSOP,
> and draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid on DNSEXT.] By contrast, the GROW WG had very
> little participation, and made the approval on very shaky grounds, with only
> 9 participants, including myself. The other people involved were all
> associated with, or directly financially interested in, DNS Anycast and
> seeing the proposed BCP move forward. They have virtually nothing to lose
> from promoting fake DNS Anycast technology, and stand to gain a lot of money,
> at least until we begin to use Stateful DNS. But the GROW WG is done with
> the discussion, and the dispute is now at another level.
>
> Inline
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Paul Francis wrote:
>
> > BTW, I'm in no way convinced that our paper is wrong, so of course
> > won't retract the paper. I was wondering if your results would change
> > my conviction, but until I see your results of course I can't change my
> mind.
>
> The discussion I'm forwarding to you is to show the prior discussion of load
> balancing and perhaps some other issues that your paper discusses.
> This particular dispute doesn't prove your paper wrong, but is rather that
> you didn't properly credit the load balancing analysis and other issues,
> including the "node selection"
>
> The false claims in your paper have already been described to you in
> sufficient detail for you to act. But I suggest that you should review the
> archives of the GROW WG, particularly my messages. Your claims of "affinity"
> have been previously discredited, as you should know---being aware of the
> controversy and even noting the controversy slightly in your paper.
>
> Your paper contains misleading terms and misleading use of statistical data
> to demonstrate false results. Your paper's arguments for affinity are an
> experimental fallacy---a fact of which you are aware, or should have known.
> The circumstances put your mistakes beyond an honest
> mistake: You were aware of the controversy, and made inexcusably misleading
> claims to report false results. Falsification of results is scientific fraud.
>
> > Actually, this should be something of an opportunity for you. You can
> > publish your results in IMC or some other conference next year and
> > overturn previous results (indeed, you'd be overturning the best paper
> > award paper!) which would create quite a buzz.
>
> What you've done is an knowingly commit scientific fraud. My approach to your
> paper will be to contact Cornell and the National Science Foundation. There
> is little in the paper's amazing claims that is original. Even the
> fraudulent claims were invented by someone else, whom you also didn't credit.
>
> I haven't heard of your paper's award, but your Stateful Anycast results are
> indeed quite amazing. If true, they would be nothing short of revolutionary.
> Stateful Anycast: Imagine! I have no doubt that such amazing claims generate
> a lot of excitement. Its just too bad that the amazing claims aren't true.
>
> "There is a rule of logic that states that any conclusion whatsoever can be
> obtained from a false statement."
> [Mathematical Paradoxes and Fallacies, Bunch (1982), pg 16]
>
> One should you look for the fallacy when things are too good to be true.
> In fact, you did look; and you did find the controversy; and then you ignored
> the controvery; and then you used misleading descriptions and analysis to
> report false results.
>
>
>
--
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/
