RE: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

[Yaakov Stein]

 
> Hi.  I'm just catching up but I think "signaling" is not an 
> essential discriminator of what we're talking about, and thus 
> this name is in fact unreasonable.  Some relationships are 
> established or tailored through signaling that have nothing 
> to do with interactiveness or delay tolerance (or SIP).  

I too have concerns about the wording "signaling",
which can mean many different things.
In a previous email I mentioned LDP, 
commonly called "signaling" in the MPLS world.
I could have picked any of the ITU-T Q series of recommendations
(the series being entitled "signalling protocols").

However, admittedly there is some correlation
between interactive communications and the need
for signaling a ephemeral connection.


> "Delay-sensitive interpersonal communications" seems to be an 
> excellent description of the scope.  

I originally thought so too (although I really don't like the
"interpersonal")
and was quite excited about the proposed new area.

However, after reading clarifications that the true intent is merely to
split up
the unwieldly transport area, I think that OFT (Offloaded from
Transport) best
describes the suggested collection of WGs.

Y(J)S

 




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [dnsop] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

[Dean Anderson]

None of my emails have been abusive.  The IETF is not some random list that can
make up rules as it pleases. Nor is the IETF a popularity contest. Unlike
members of "joes barbecue list" or Nanog, or other such lists, IETF Participants
have an opportunity to participate and under the ISOC and IETF codes of conduct,
a right to be free of unwarranted personal attacks and threats.  Valid,
justified, technical criticism is not a violation of any IETF rule. Nor is valid
criticism a disruption.

Kessens' fallacious complaint is just revenge in an attempt to squash valid
technical criticism of ISC's operation of F Root.  Valid criticism of Root DNS
operation is an appropriate topic for the DNSOP list.  I think that the IESG
ought to address the validity of my criticism of ISC Root DNS operation and
deployment of the Anycast Extension, and I think that the IESG should address
the abuse of WG Chair privileges by the Mr. Kessens, and consider the failures
of the WG chairs to properly criticize actual abuse.  Kessens is not the only
abuser.

Kessens further claims falsely below that I "immediately followed up by sending
more abusive mails to the dnsop and ietf mail lists".  Plainly, there is nothing
abusive about complaining about Kessens' threats, nor is there anything abusive
about defending my criticisms as being valid, justified, and appropriate to the
DNSOP list. Plainly, my complaint about Kessens' behavior to the IETF list is an
administrative issue, and so it is within the administrative purpose of the main
IETF list. There is nothing abusive about that.

However, this is not to say that abuse isn't happening. Besides Mr. Kessens'
instant abuse of his position, there is a history of unchecked abuse against
myself and others, including Dr. Dan Bernstein, who have been abused several
times on the IETF main list as well as a particular pattern of disruption on the
DNSOP and DNSEXT lists.

>From RFC 3683:

   Notably, in a small number of cases, a participant has engaged in
   what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the
   consensus-driven process.  Typically, these attacks are made by
   repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or
   otherwise counter-productive.  In contrast, good faith disagreement
   is a healthy part of the consensus-driven process.

My activity hasn't been disruptive of any IETF activity. In fact, Mr. Kessens'
complaint is plainly meant to disrupt consideration of my (but not just mine)  
valid technical criticism.  The only possible disruption is to ISC financial
income from selling Anycast DNS Root services.  But since the technical
contributions of myself, Dan Bernstein, Iljitsch van Beijnum and others is that
those services can't work in general, the IETF DNSOP WG has an obligation to
investigate and discuss that.

However, there has been much disruptive behavior by others especially on the
subject of the ISC Anycast Extension. Activity that is clearly intended to
disrupt or even deny email service. Here is a short list:

In 2002, after Dr. Bernstein reported on the DNSEXT list about the ISC Anycast
Extension described by ISC in a presentation to Nanog, his subscription address
was posted by Randy Bush (then DNSEXT WG chair) on several occasions to the
DNSEXT list.  The enabled forged unsubscriptions of his email address,
disrupting Dr. Bernstein's email subscription. The posting of the unsubscription
address only happened to Dr. Bernstein. This eventually disrupted the discussion
of the ISC Anycast Extension, as discussion turned to the abuse of Dr.
Bernstein.  This is plainly a violation of IETF rules on participation.  Bush
stepped down as WG chair afterward, and many including myself thought that this
was a punishment. However, Harald Alvestrand informed me in his role as IETF
Chair that Bush was not punished. So no action was ever taken for this abuse.

Other incidents happened, generally involving Nanog participants and
ISC-friendly people. For example:

The 2002 Nanog Presentation on Anycast Extension was made by ISC Project Manager
Suzanne Woolf. In September, 2004, on the subject of the ISC Anycast Extension,
John Brown made a vicious personal attack on the DNSOP list against Dean
Anderson. A complaint was made to DNSOP and the IETF main list on September 30,
2004.  In his attack, Brown claimed no affiliation with ISC:

"...I felt it important to reply as someone thats NOT in
any shape fashion or form, ISC or its staff"  --John Brown.

It turned out that Brown was involved with Suzanne Woolf in at least
Chagres.net, at the time. The same Woolf who was in charge of the Anycast
Extension at ISC.  Still, non-affiliation doesn't justify unwarranted personal
attacks, but affiliation and false claims of non-affiliation certainly makes
those attacks look more self-serving.  No action was ever taken by the IETF or
by the DNSOP WG chair in response to this or ANY other complaints.

On May 9, 2004, I attempted to send the DNSOP Co-chair Rob Aus

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

[Dean Anderson]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> I'm sorry, David's note wasn't an "attack" -- it was David excercising 
> his responsibility as an AD.  Have a look at Section 2 of RFC 3683 -- 
> to revoke someone's posting rights, he *must* make a public statement 
> on the IETF mailing list.

Kessens offlist email was a threat. 

Kessens only made the complaint in revenge for my administrative complaint 
about 
his threat.

Kessens complaint, being unjustified revenge, is an attack.

But lets not forget, Mr. Bellovin, just last week you reported in your offical
capacity as Chair of the IPR WG on the contents of a message of mine involving
patent policy. You reported that my message was wrong, and at the end noted you
hadn't even read my message.

Mr. Bellovin: you are a research scientist at a respected institution, and you
know very well that if you haven't read a document, you can't honestly comment
on its contents.

I am still waiting for your honest acknowledgment that my message was not wrong,
and for you to acknowledge honestly as Chair of the IPR Working Group that the
IETF policy is to prefer non-encumbered technology as documented in RFC3979
Section 8.

--Dean
-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

[Nicholas Staff]

> - Forwarded message from Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> 
> FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant 
> criticism of 
> mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
> 
> -- 
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700
> From: David Kessens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rob Austein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  Bert Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [dnsop] An attack that 
> DNSSEC would
> have defended against...]
> 
> 
> Dean,
> 
> To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official warning to
> you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting privileges
> if I see one more abusive mail from you.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David Kessens
> ---

Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this
discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a clarification from David
on this whole thing.

David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if
he continued what you felt were abusive posts.  Dean in turn informed the
IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by
you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion.  You
then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post
and requested to have his privileges removed.  Is that basically correct?
If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a
complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for
retribution?  This to me transcends Dean and whether or not his posts are
abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone else has the answer) if I can be
penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG.

Thanks,

Nick


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

[Pete Resnick]

On 9/24/05 at 4:41 PM -0400, Scott W Brim wrote:


On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:

Signalling  Applications and Infrastructure Area


Actually, I screwed up: It's "Signalled Applications and Infrastructure".

Some relationships are established or tailored through signaling 
that have nothing to do with interactiveness or delay tolerance (or 
SIP).


True, but which "Signalled Applications" are you thinking of that 
wouldn't fit into this area? Further, I can think of all sorts of 
interactive and delay intolerant things that do not belong in this 
area. *Signalled* applications (and the infrastructure to support 
them) seems *exactly to describe the things that I want grouped 
together.



Some are established through "management".


I don't understand. Are you saying that protocols with "managed" 
relationships which aren't signalled do belong in this area (and that 
"signalled" in the name would muddy the waters somehow)? Could you 
give me examples?


"Delay-sensitive interpersonal communications" seems to be an 
excellent description of the scope.


(*Shrug*) "Interpersonal" doesn't seem to apply to some things I want 
in this area (as I think has been mentioned before.



"Instant" messaging should be included.


Right.


TDM should not...


And TDM is a "signalled application"?

pr
--
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

[Scott W Brim]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 11:15:51AM -0500, Pete Resnick allegedly wrote:
> On 9/23/05 at 3:59 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> >So far, references have been made to time-sensitive and to 
> >signalling, yet it is not clear how this applies to the work that is 
> >being defined as seeding the area.  Since SIP is really a signalling 
> >protocol, yes, that part is clear. But where is the time-sensitive 
> >technology component to the work in the area?
> 
> Dave,
> 
> I'm not entirely clear here: Do you have a problem with Ted's 
> reformulation of this potential new area as the Signalling 
> Applications and Infrastructure Area? That is, does his description 
> concretely define the new area well enough?
> 
> (If SAI is reasonable, and I think it is, let's use that 
> reformulation and be done with it.)

Hi.  I'm just catching up but I think "signaling" is not an essential
discriminator of what we're talking about, and thus this name is in
fact unreasonable.  Some relationships are established or tailored
through signaling that have nothing to do with interactiveness or
delay tolerance (or SIP).  Some are established through "management".  

"Delay-sensitive interpersonal communications" seems to be an
excellent description of the scope.  "Instant" messaging should be
included.  TDM should not, and one-way multimedia should only be
ancillary, even if SIP-based.  

I'm not sure what the name should be but please, putting "signaling"
in the name is worse than "real-time".

swb

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

[Steven M. Bellovin]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nicholas Staff" writes:
> > I hope that we can discuss this as soon as possible. Until then, I
>> will try to refrain from sending any more messages on this topic as I
>> don't believe that this will be productive. People on this mail list
>> might want to consider to do the same thing.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> David Kessens
>> Operations & Management Area Director
>
>I agree this is not the forum for this discussion, but since you publicized
>your attack I think he's entitled to at least one public dissent.  I'd be
>happy to agree with you by the way if you could show me anything that
>amounted to the abuse you claim (abuse from Dean that is).  Anyway, barring
>that I'll list the 1,000 reasons why I think you're wrong in my email to the
>IESG.

I'm sorry, David's note wasn't an "attack" -- it was David excercising 
his responsibility as an AD.  Have a look at Section 2 of RFC 3683 -- 
to revoke someone's posting rights, he *must* make a public statement 
on the IETF mailing list.

--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb



___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

[Nicholas Staff]

 > I hope that we can discuss this as soon as possible. Until then, I
> will try to refrain from sending any more messages on this topic as I
> don't believe that this will be productive. People on this mail list
> might want to consider to do the same thing.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David Kessens
> Operations & Management Area Director

I agree this is not the forum for this discussion, but since you publicized
your attack I think he's entitled to at least one public dissent.  I'd be
happy to agree with you by the way if you could show me anything that
amounted to the abuse you claim (abuse from Dean that is).  Anyway, barring
that I'll list the 1,000 reasons why I think you're wrong in my email to the
IESG.

Thanks,

Nick Staff


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

[Pete Resnick]

On 9/23/05 at 3:59 PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:

So far, references have been made to time-sensitive and to 
signalling, yet it is not clear how this applies to the work that is 
being defined as seeding the area.  Since SIP is really a signalling 
protocol, yes, that part is clear. But where is the time-sensitive 
technology component to the work in the area?


Dave,

I'm not entirely clear here: Do you have a problem with Ted's 
reformulation of this potential new area as the Signalling 
Applications and Infrastructure Area? That is, does his description 
concretely define the new area well enough?


(If SAI is reasonable, and I think it is, let's use that 
reformulation and be done with it.)


pr
--
Pete Resnick 
QUALCOMM Incorporated

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Possible new Real-Time Applications and Infrastucture (RAI) Area

[Scott Michel]

On 9/22/05, Melinda Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/22/05 1:14 AM, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> The term> "real-time" tends to mean sub-second, and often much faster than that.
That seems to be the vernacular use, but strictly speaking "real-time"is about robust assurances of delivery within a constrained time period,whether that time period is millisecond or multi-minute.  In other
words, the focus is on the guarantees, not on really-really-fast.
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a second: What wasn't addressed by the
previous work done in RSVP and Diffserv that this new area has to be
urgently addressed? Are not packet schedulers enough?

Or are we going to watch a whole new infrastructure get developed that
will be now better than the previous work, with less complexity, and
more hope of being deployed outside of DoD programs? Because, frankly,
that's the only place I've seen an explicit need for advanced QoS
techniques (besides VoIP, and that gets to be really debatable too.)


-scooter

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf