Mr Anderson,
On the 20th September I informed you through a final warning that any
further postings from yourself that included personal attacks or
attempts to disrupt the working group's activities would result in
the immediate suspension of your posting rights to the GROW mailing list.
I note that your posting to the GROW WG mailing list (copied below)
includes accusations of fraud directed at Mr Karrenberg and
accusations of fraud and falsification of data directed at Mr
Francis. Differences of opinion are one thing, but when such
differences are expressed in the form of personal attack then they
have no role on this mailing list.
Lucy, please remove Mr Anderson's posting rights to the GROW WG mailing list.
David, please note this WG Chair action with respect to Mr Anderson.
Geoff Huston
GROW WG Chair
At 04:59 AM 26/09/2006, Dean Anderson wrote:
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
_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
