Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
I have now finished my work on a petition explaining to the IESG why I think Jefsey Morfin should be banned from posting on the IETF list under RFC 3683. It's time to figure out whether there are more people who agree with me and the other signatories on this. Please read the petition, and if you agree, sign it. Petition: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/jefsey-pr-action.php The online version includes references to sample postings by Jefsey. Main body of text reproduced below. This message will be posted to the IETF list, the ietf-languages list and the LTRU mailing list. Please keep discussion on the IETF list. Jefsey Morfin PR-Action Petition Last modified: September 28, 2005 This message is a request to the IESG to consider approving a PR-action, as per RFC 3683, barring the person known as Jean-Francois Charles Morfin (Jefsey), an individual known to be posting from the addresses [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], from the IETF mailing list, and giving blanket permission to any manager of any IETF mailing list to bar him from posting there, as per the RFC. Disruptive behaviour Based on the public record of Jefsey's postings, we believe that Jefsey Morfin is engaging in disruptive behaviour that has caused considerable damage to the ability of the IETF to proceed speedily and with consensus in the working groups in which he has participated. In particular, his postings exhibit: * Use of inflammatory language towards others [1] * Misquoting and misrepresenting of other people's arguments [2] * Refusal to stop pursuing an argument in the face of consensus against him [3] * Misrepresentation of non-IETF organizations [4] * Personal attacks and use of threatening language against people who disagree with him, using attributes such as language, nationality or employer [5] * Postings that seem to serve no purpose apart from inciting negative reaction [6] * Very limited ability to contribute anything with actual technical content to the discussion Effects of this behaviour is to make other people either angry enough to post further inflammatory emails to the lists (disrupting constructive discussion) or to cause participants with valuable insight to drop out of the conversation (reducing the input to the IETF process), or to refuse to consider contributing work on documents in WGs where Jefsey is active (making it harder to get work done). Previous chastisement history A number of people have tried explaining to Jefsey why his behaviour is inappropriate. No change in behaviour has occured. [A] To the petitioners' knowledge, his posting rights to IETF mailing lists have been suspended three times - once to the LTRU WG's mailing list [B], and twice to the ietf-languages mailing list [C][D]. These suspensions have produced no change in behaviour. Conclusion We, the undersigned, believe that the material presented above provides a clear case that Jefsey Morfin is being abusive of the consensus-driven process, as required by RFC 3683, and therefore ask that the IESG undertake a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Would it be too much to ask for new rules so that in the future these petitions be discussed on some other mail list setup for this purpose (and for other general issues of ietf email lists administration) and that ietf@ietf.org be only used to indicate new petition or results of one and remind those interested where to post comments about it. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Johan Henriksson wrote: Will McAfee writes: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ This is not their place to be deciding as if they ever owned the Internet. They have no rights to the Internet, by the very nature of it's structure. Placing governments in charge of the Internet would be a disaster, the worst possible thing that could happen to it. Gouvernements are not in charge of DNS and they probably never will be. Who pays for the root-servers? With whom do they have contracts? As long as nobody pays for them they will do what they want. MIL and ARPA will close their service. So will do EDU. The rest will join The Public-Root, ORSC, opennic, ... The UN will talk and talk and ... a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; with such, we would not need the top organizations we have today, it would be much harder for anyone to claim the net and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. of course, a p2p net of that size is a challenge but it's that kind of thing that make engineering fun :) Please have a look at http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason especially the part about bifurcation. Part of it is in english. It is science fiction but it is strong and maybe it will replace DNS some time. There used to be NIS as a competitor to /etc/hosts. DNS has broken a lot of things that used to work with /etc/hosts. NIS did not break anything but it did not scale the way DNS was supposed to. DNS did not scale either. With some 80% of all domains living in .com we face a flat file not a tree :) Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:34:06PM -0700, kent crispin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 32 lines which said: In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots, it would simply collapse. You're mixing the network of root servers with the root (Doc/NTIA). The first is a delicate engineering achievment and is not easy to replace. The second one is just a desk with two civil servants. There is heavy duty infrastructure, both human and physical, involved. So, I would rephrase Anthony G. Atkielski's thought experiment: If every root name server operator switches to an alternate root tomorrow, then the real root won't matter. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 25 lines which said: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:31:17AM -0400, Will McAfee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 40 lines which said: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ There is no discussion here of a plan to take over IETF job (when you say our job, I assume, from the mailing list it is posted on, that you refer to IETFers). The root DNS zone or the IP address allocation (the real subjects of the discussion at the WSIS) are not managed by IETF so we have nothing to win or lose here. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
quick comments over Harald's use of RFC 3683
I quickly reviewed the http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/jefsey-pr-action.php. It calls for some quick comments. - the petition text is IMHO standard, however my non-American culture finds some wording purposely hurting. But IANAL. - the proposition has a first annex of often wrongly/childly characterized (as this is probably usual in a controversy) exchanges and links to a list of mails. The quick perusal of all these selected and out of context mails seems to globally weak the accusation. More seriously, this calls for a comment on the motives of the action and on the lynching RFC 3683 seems to permit without warranting the rights of the lynched person. I do not wish to comments this by mail and will simply submit two Drafts which will permit to more seriously discuss and update the technical and systemic issues involved and suggestion proposed. I also need IESG guidance on three particular points. I cannot object Harald's request to send him support in using the IETF list. I only suggest you keep it as short as possible so we do not waste time and bandwidth over noise. This only happens because I came here considering the IETF important to the Internet users, and because I did refuse to transform it in an intra/inter-SSDO battle-field: I thank people wishing to support me to keep sending _private_ mails or to abstain wasting their time. Feuds happens in Research when official thinking is challenged. Usually History decides the loser is the bitter. I do not have much time to dedicate to this, but I am ready to help a deeper thinking about RFC 3683 practicalities over a real case. I think the IETF needs it, not to be used, and may be blocked, in circumstances discussed by RFC 3869. This is why I do _co-sign_ Harald's motion (with mention: to get a copy of the co-signatories exchanges and to help the discussion of the RFC 3683 refinements the IETF we probably needs). I only see this as a confirmation, by my competition, of the probable market impact of my technical propositions (based on the work of many worldwide), and an attempt to prevent or discredit them and my planned appeals or appeals support on behalf of the common good. This is only for me a pressing incitation to develop them faster. I am going to do this without waiting anymore for the consensus I hoped still possible. The attempt to still delay me/us has failed. Sorry. jfc I have now finished my work on a petition explaining to the IESG why I think Jefsey Morfin should be banned from posting on the IETF list under RFC 3683. It's time to figure out whether there are more people who agree with me and the other signatories on this. Please read the petition, and if you agree, sign it. Petition: http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/jefsey-pr-action.php The online version includes references to sample postings by Jefsey. Main body of text reproduced below. This message will be posted to the IETF list, the ietf-languages list and the LTRU mailing list. Please keep discussion on the IETF list. Jefsey Morfin PR-Action Petition Last modified: September 28, 2005 This message is a request to the IESG to consider approving a PR-action, as per RFC 3683, barring the person known as Jean-Francois Charles Morfin (Jefsey), an individual known to be posting from the addresses [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED], from the IETF mailing list, and giving blanket permission to any manager of any IETF mailing list to bar him from posting there, as per the RFC. Disruptive behaviour Based on the public record of Jefsey's postings, we believe that Jefsey Morfin is engaging in disruptive behaviour that has caused considerable damage to the ability of the IETF to proceed speedily and with consensus in the working groups in which he has participated. In particular, his postings exhibit: * Use of inflammatory language towards others [1] * Misquoting and misrepresenting of other people's arguments [2] * Refusal to stop pursuing an argument in the face of consensus against him [3] * Misrepresentation of non-IETF organizations [4] * Personal attacks and use of threatening language against people who disagree with him, using attributes such as language, nationality or employer [5] * Postings that seem to serve no purpose apart from inciting negative reaction [6] * Very limited ability to contribute anything with actual technical content to the discussion Effects of this behaviour is to make other people either angry enough to post further inflammatory emails to the lists (disrupting constructive discussion) or to cause participants with valuable insight to drop out of the conversation (reducing the input to the IETF process), or to refuse to
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Harald, Just out of curiosity : is there a symmetrical way to oppose a petition like this one ? Or can arguments only be one-sided ? I think such a petition page should contain several choices : approve, disapprove, don't care,... The way it is done on the page is heavily slanted towards approval of the ban, and offers no way to oppose it. This is understandable because it is partial, but partiality should not have a say when gathering opinions that may ultimately result in collective action. What we need is a tool to weight whether there is a significant majority of people approving the ban, not one that tells us some people want it (which will always be verified). Regards, Julien.. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: I have now finished my work on a petition explaining to the IESG why I think Jefsey Morfin should be banned from posting on the IETF list under RFC 3683. -- Julien Maisonneuve 2.333 Alcanet 2101 1145 Alcatel HQ - Standardisation Tel +33 1 4076 1145 54 rue la Boëtie, F-75008 Paris Fax +33 1 4076 5912 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
p2p dns (was: Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 25 lines which said: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) is there an interest? I don't have much experience of IETF, much less in taking care of a wg. but if more people would want to work on such a thing, I could look into how to start up such an endeavor. (although I doubt it would grow into a substitute in the end; rather a complement) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
Hi, Although what WSIS may or may not decide is undoubtedly of interest to the Internet community, I really think it is a distraction here and now until there are concrete questions for us to discuss. Our community's route to the WSIS discussions is through the ISOC - where basic membership is free, by the way. Brian Peter Dambier wrote: Alexis Turner wrote: I don't want to clutter up everyone's inboxes with dozens of rants that amount to hyperventilating and lots of Iiii's!, but if anyone would like to e-mail me off list with their thoughts on the UN's WSIS conference and why having them replace ICANN would be a good/bad thing for the Internet, I would love to hear it. I'm not looking to pick a fight or argue - I'm just honestly interested in hearing the various opinions. The issue is a lot bigger than anything I can get my head around right now, and hearing what other people have to say would help me think about it more constructively. I myself am on this list more or less Just for kicks, or, as I prefer to think of it, personal edification, but do note that it is possible quotes from your e-mails will make it onto a personal site that I use for my own rambling and probably incoherent research. If you don't want this, just say so. -Alexis PS: Bonus points if you actually read what they are proposing before you respond. Hi Alexis, I followed the discussion list. I could hardly follow it. Is there a UN? To me it looks like a bunch of small and not so small dictators at the table and several rooms full of intelligent people outside. It might be interesting to give them the internet. But how should you do that? What could they do with it? Give them the root. The root operators will laughingly stand up and go away. Each of them will start running his own root on his own hardware. The internet hardware? Belongs to companies that were not allowed to join. How should all the internet operators find out what the UN want them to do if they dont allow them in? I dont think anything but a lot of wasted paper will come out of that meeting. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: p2p dns (was: Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Johan: I imagine you have seen this paper on the subject of a p2p DNS substitute based on CHORD, but it is interesting reading for others. http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/178.pdf Regards, Elwyn Davies Johan Henriksson wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 25 lines which said: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) is there an interest? I don't have much experience of IETF, much less in taking care of a wg. but if more people would want to work on such a thing, I could look into how to start up such an endeavor. (although I doubt it would grow into a substitute in the end; rather a complement) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
William, It's hard to make that a rule. Unfortunately, this is the catch-all list for the IETF. Note, Harald is not inviting discussion - only a URL to click on. Brian william(at)elan.net wrote: Would it be too much to ask for new rules so that in the future these petitions be discussed on some other mail list setup for this purpose (and for other general issues of ietf email lists administration) and that ietf@ietf.org be only used to indicate new petition or results of one and remind those interested where to post comments about it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: p2p dns (was: Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
I believe the system described in the cited paper does exactly the reverse of what's being discussed here. CHORD and its relatives provide an alternative way of serving the data, but the hierarchical structure of domain names remains the same. If I understand the intent of this thread, the desire is to create a P2P naming system, similar to a web of trust, that does not require a hierarchical naming system and the administrative machinery needed to maintain that naming system. That is, I thought the thrust of this thread is how to create an alternative to the IANA, not how to how to create an alternative to the root servers. Steve Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sep 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote: Johan: I imagine you have seen this paper on the subject of a p2p DNS substitute based on CHORD, but it is interesting reading for others. http://www.cs.rice.edu/Conferences/IPTPS02/178.pdf Regards, Elwyn Davies Johan Henriksson wrote: On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:45:29AM +0200, Johan Henriksson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 25 lines which said: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; Is it a formal call to a new WG? Please provide a candidate charter :-) I'd subscribe immediately :-) is there an interest? I don't have much experience of IETF, much less in taking care of a wg. but if more people would want to work on such a thing, I could look into how to start up such an endeavor. (although I doubt it would grow into a substitute in the end; rather a complement) - Johan Henriksson ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
--On fredag, september 30, 2005 14:36:39 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald, Just out of curiosity : is there a symmetrical way to oppose a petition like this one ? Or can arguments only be one-sided ? I think such a petition page should contain several choices : approve, disapprove, don't care,... Sure there is - create your own page, write your petition text, and ask people to sign up there. I'll even share the PHP code with you if you want it! I have taken on the role of arguing *for* banning Jefsey from the IETF. I'm not neutral in any way, shape or form. It's the IESG's business to say whether or not the requirements of the RFC are fulfiled. The way it is done on the page is heavily slanted towards approval of the ban, and offers no way to oppose it. This is understandable because it is partial, but partiality should not have a say when gathering opinions that may ultimately result in collective action. The IESG decides based on evidence presented to it. One of the pieces of evidence is that the people (10 so far) who have signed the petition believe that Jefsey Morfin is being abusive of the consensus-driven process (that's a quote from RFC 3683). Others may want to present other relevant evidence. I'm acting as advocate in this case. I'm not the jury. Harald PS: I recommend reading both RFC 3683 and a selection of Jefsey's messages before making up your mind about the case ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
An update. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/29/business/net.php EU and U.S. clash over control of Net By Tom Wright International Herald Tribune FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 GENEVA The United States and Europe clashed here Thursday in one of their sharpest public disagreements in months, after European Union negotiators proposed stripping the Americans of their effective control of the Internet. The European decision to back the rest of the world in demanding the creation of a new international body to govern the Internet clearly caught the Americans off balance and left them largely isolated at talks designed to come up with a new way of regulating the digital traffic of the 21st century. It's a very shocking and profound change of the EU's position, said David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy. The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet. Delegates meeting in Geneva for the past two weeks had been hoping to reach consensus for a draft document by Friday after two years of debate. The talks on international digital issues, called the World Summit on the Information Society and organized by the United Nations, were scheduled to conclude in November at a meeting in Tunisia. Instead, the talks have deadlocked, with the United States fighting a solitary battle against countries that want to see a global body take over supervision of the Internet. The United States lost its only ally late Wednesday when the EU made a surprise proposal to create an intergovernmental body that would set principles for running the Internet. Currently, the U.S. Commerce Department approves changes to the Internet's root zone files, which are administered by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or Icann, a nonprofit organization based in Marina del Rey, California. more ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: quick comments over Harald's use of RFC 3683
JFC, Since I have engaged in debate with you on another list, maybe I can offer some constructive criticism to perhaps make you understand why people react the way they do, up to and including this proposed action. I have cc'd the IETF and IESG since I others may agree or disagree with me and offer feedback to you privately or publically. 1. Your postings are Long, Rambling and Frequent (LRF). I have a certain sympathy for people whose native language is not English (like myself) when they post on these lists. However, this usually results in fewer, not more words, a la We meet lunch 11 cafe? In your case--and unlike in the digital picture case--more words/pixels does not contribute to the clarity of the image, quite the opposite in fact. Rambling refers to your tendency to make references to everything under the sun while discussing a given topic. Frequent just adds to the irritation. It's not like anyone on this list gets too little mail. 2. Your posting appears to come from a position where the IETF members collectively are just clueless, have not seen the light or found their way to your particular techno-religion. Some call this preaching, and in this case the choir is not appreciative. 3. Some of your postings can be read as personal attacks. While some may call this your debating style, there are clearly instances when you cross the line. This really isn't a good way to make friends with a large group of people. 4. Some of your arguments appear to be technical in nature, but are incomprehensible even to our most respected experts. It is of course POSSIBLE that they are wrong and you are right, but if you are unable to explain your position even to them after many rounds, does it not seem like you are wasting your, their and our time? Thanks for listening. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
(this should not go on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but for lack of a better list... please disregard if it bothers you) Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Sure there is - create your own page, write your petition text, and ask people to sign up there. I'll even share the PHP code with you if you want it! This is not what I call a symmetrical means to express disapproval : for the average reader, it take a *lot* more work to defend than to attack. So I take your answer is there is no symmetrical way and it is a lot harder to express disapproval than approval. This is what I call a slanted process, and I would deem it inappropriate in any oranization that prides itself on fair and balanced processes. Note that the whole issue of list ban is treading on first amendment grounds in a way that could end up in court. I have taken on the role of arguing *for* banning Jefsey from the IETF. I'm not neutral in any way, shape or form. It's the IESG's business to say whether or not the requirements of the RFC are fulfiled. This is what I call partial. Being partial is perfectly OK. It's just that I don't think the process should rely on partiality. I even think it should exclude partiality as much as possible. The way to do that here is to allow people to express their opinion in an unslanted way. Your page would be a perfect tool if it wasn't slanted The IESG decides based on evidence presented to it. One of the pieces of evidence is that the people (10 so far) who have signed the petition believe that Jefsey Morfin is being abusive of the consensus-driven process (that's a quote from RFC 3683). Others may want to present other relevant evidence. Presenting slanted evidence is hardly a positive action. You will always find a few people to ban a controversial poster. It will always be harder to find people on the defending side, because the individual interest in defending a (controversial) person is always low and will generally not justify defensive actions. That process will inevitably result in banning people even though a (possibly silent) majority doesn't approve it. This is not what I would call consensus-based decision. I'm acting as advocate in this case. I'm not the jury. Or rather prosecutor ? PS: I recommend reading both RFC 3683 and a selection of Jefsey's messages before making up your mind about the case I haven't, and I'm not even sure I care. I'm worried about the process, and about the number of times it seems to be invoked. Banning should be exceptional. Now we are presented with two dubious (read non obvious, possibly requiring very careful inspection to arrive to a conclusion) cases in the space of a few days, and it appears that the process itself is hardly symmetrical and lacks clear consensus safeguards. In a balanced world, this would spell doom for RFC3683. Regards, Julien. -- Julien Maisonneuve (not speaking for my employer or anyone else) ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
/legal lurk No first amendment issues are implicated here. The first amendment only protects US persons (citizens residents) against actions by the US government. Both sides of that equation are absent here. This is private action against a private party. It may implicate the moral principles of freedom of expression but these are not ordinarily actionable either in the US or elsewhere. YMMV of course. Please note that this comment expresses no opinion on the merits of the ban. legal lurk On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [much edited] Note that the whole issue of list ban is treading on first amendment grounds in a way that could end up in court. -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's @#$% hot here.-- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN
kent crispin writes: That's sounds good, but in fact, it's utter nonsense. It's like saying that the only difference between rowboat and a cargo ship is what people believe about them. In fact, if everybody started using one of the alternate roots, it would simply collapse. Well, no. If everyone started using the same alternate roots, then the alternate roots would effectively be the real roots. There is far more to the real root system than just human sentiment. There is heavy duty infrastructure, both human and physical, involved. Nothing prevents the operators of alternate roots from putting the same type of infrastructure into place. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
Johan Henriksson writes: a peer 2 peer replacement for DNS tops my internet wish list; with such, we would not need the top organizations we have today, it would be much harder for anyone to claim the net and thus we wouldn't be having this discussion. You need an authoritative root. I don't want worldwide TLDs to be diverted by unscrupulous local operators. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Hi Julien, I think that there is some misunderstanding regarding what is happening. Harald Alvestrand is not in charge of an IETF PR-action process, and he has no official role in this process. Harald is attempting to assemble information that he will use to propose a PR-action (a Posting Rights action), as described in RFC 3683. Once he has assembled this information, he will presumably use the information to persuade a member of the IESG (an AD) to sponsor this action. That AD would then be in charge of running a fair and open process to decide whether or not Jefsey Morphin's posting rights should be revoked. If Harald finds an AD who will sponsor this action, then the process described in RFC 3683 would be followed. That process includes an IETF Last Call period, during which any member of the community may comment on the action. After that, the IESG would make a decision on the action using the usual consensus-based process. Like all IESG decisions, that decision is also subject to appeal. This is all described quite clearly in RFC 3683. Harald is not required to be impartial in this effort, any more than a document author is required to be impartial in garnering support for his own technical work. It is the AD's job to make sure that the process of evaluating the PR-action is run fairly. If an AD does decide to sponsor this PR-action, there will be an explicit opportunity for the community to comment on this action (the IETF LC) before a decision is made regarding it. Margaret At 5:46 PM +0200 9/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is not what I call a symmetrical means to express disapproval : for the average reader, it take a *lot* more work to defend than to attack. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action [....]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (this should not go on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but for lack of a better list... please disregard if it bothers you) [...] Banning should be exceptional. So far 3683 was never used (please correct me if I'm wrong). Now we are presented with two dubious (read non obvious, possibly requiring very careful inspection to arrive to a conclusion) cases in the space of a few days Very different at the moment: Only an AD can start (or prepare to start) a PR action. That might be what we've seen in the first case. This second case is still at the convince an AD to support to start a PR action stage. It's a private petition of Harald (he's affected as listmom of the tag review list, so unlike most others he's not free to use his killfile there). it appears that the process itself is hardly symmetrical and lacks clear consensus safeguards. That would come later in the last call. At the moment the second case is a private list of signatures, same idea as e.g. http://old.openspf.org/cgi-bin/openspf_pledge.cgi - but of course the signatures of several (former) IETF Chairs, ADs, WG co-Chairs, Unicode Chair, TAO author, etc. might impress the poor active AD(s) who finally get(s) this list... In a balanced world, this would spell doom for RFC3683. ...so far it's like an unpublished I-D. If you don't agree with it you could ignore it until the potential last call. Bye, Frank ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process (fwd)
Alexis Turner wrote: Geez, Harald. You misspelled off. Am I going to have to virtually crucify you in front of the list for this? yes. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Margaret Wasserman writes: Harald is attempting to assemble information that he will use to propose a PR-action (a Posting Rights action), as described in RFC 3683. Once he has assembled this information, he will presumably use the information to persuade a member of the IESG (an AD) to sponsor this action. That AD would then be in charge of running a fair and open process to decide whether or not Jefsey Morphin's posting rights should be revoked. I confess that I'm uneasy about Harald's action. It has too much the air of an unpopularity contest -- every one who doesn't like Jefsey's should sign on to kick him off the 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: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
If the IESG has the time to compile blacklists and go on witch hunts, perhaps it doesn't have enough work to justify its existence. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
entire discussion by smart people deleted for brevity Might I suggest all participants in this discussion figure out what you really want to use DNS for if you were to assume it didn't exist in the first place. Imagine going back in time to 1986 and explaining to everyone at the IETF the way things would develop and then, after they've stopped laughing, imagine what kind of system would have resulted. My personal suspicion is that two things would be very different: There wouldn't be one monolithic namespace/protocol/system. At least two systems would exist: one for hiding IP network layer topology from apps and another for describing and naming services for end users. The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. It might be what people today call peer to peer (although I have yet to find a good definition of what that means) but that might not be an issue since the names wouldn't be hierarchical. What I find humorous is that this community's default position seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what you'd think we're good at -MM /me goes back to building rockets which is much more fun... -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
--On fredag, september 30, 2005 14:00:51 -0400 Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Margaret Wasserman writes: Harald is attempting to assemble information that he will use to propose a PR-action (a Posting Rights action), as described in RFC 3683. Once he has assembled this information, he will presumably use the information to persuade a member of the IESG (an AD) to sponsor this action. That AD would then be in charge of running a fair and open process to decide whether or not Jefsey Morphin's posting rights should be revoked. I confess that I'm uneasy about Harald's action. It has too much the air of an unpopularity contest -- every one who doesn't like Jefsey's should sign on to kick him off the mailing list. It doesn't make me feel good either. But the alternatives I saw were: - Don't do anything, and let Jefsey continue doing damage - Make a solo proposal (or one with its supporters gathered privately) to the IESG for a PR-action - Be public, and see who else agreed with my opinion I did not find the first alternative attractive. The second sounded like it could easily be seen as the in-crowd is conspiring to silence dissent by conspiracy theorists. So by Hobson's choice, I ended up with the third one. I'm happy to see that there are names on my petition that I don't recognize at all - it gives me some confidence that my exasperation with Jefsey's behaviour was not just something peculiar to my viewpoint or that of my friends. But once next week's gone by, I'm happy to pass the token to the IESG, and worry no more about it. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: quick comments over Harald's use of RFC 3683
I believe I made quite a similar set of points off list to JFC soon after Harald proposed his 3683. I definitely agree that it appears there is a fundamental divergence between the mindset and protocols of this orgnaization and his ways. I guess it boild down to should we stop trying to pound this square peg into that round hole? This doesn't appear to be working! -Tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ole Jacobsen Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 7:47 AM To: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin Cc: ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: quick comments over Harald's use of RFC 3683 JFC, Since I have engaged in debate with you on another list, maybe I can offer some constructive criticism to perhaps make you understand why people react the way they do, up to and including this proposed action. I have cc'd the IETF and IESG since I others may agree or disagree with me and offer feedback to you privately or publically. 1. Your postings are Long, Rambling and Frequent (LRF). I have a certain sympathy for people whose native language is not English (like myself) when they post on these lists. However, this usually results in fewer, not more words, a la We meet lunch 11 cafe? In your case--and unlike in the digital picture case--more words/pixels does not contribute to the clarity of the image, quite the opposite in fact. Rambling refers to your tendency to make references to everything under the sun while discussing a given topic. Frequent just adds to the irritation. It's not like anyone on this list gets too little mail. 2. Your posting appears to come from a position where the IETF members collectively are just clueless, have not seen the light or found their way to your particular techno-religion. Some call this preaching, and in this case the choir is not appreciative. 3. Some of your postings can be read as personal attacks. While some may call this your debating style, there are clearly instances when you cross the line. This really isn't a good way to make friends with a large group of people. 4. Some of your arguments appear to be technical in nature, but are incomprehensible even to our most respected experts. It is of course POSSIBLE that they are wrong and you are right, but if you are unable to explain your position even to them after many rounds, does it not seem like you are wasting your, their and our time? Thanks for listening. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal Academic Research and Technology Initiatives, Cisco Systems Tel: +1 408-527-8972 GSM: +1 415-370-4628 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
I confess that I'm uneasy about Harald's action. It has too much the air of an unpopularity contest -- every one who doesn't like Jefsey's should sign on to kick him off the mailing list. Oh. Right. Good point! As I understand the rules of behavior, they impose some objective criteria. Whether one has violated those criteria well might be a judgment call, but assessing facts by polling public opinion is problematic for exactly the reason Steve raises: it is usually confounded by affective factors, such as (dis)liking. Harald is asserting some facts about a particular person's posting behavior. It should not require subtle thinking or otherwise involve much precision to evaluate Harald's petition. If the fact of a person's violating the rules is legitimately debatable -- in other words, if it might reasonably be considered a close call -- then they probably have not violated the rules (or, at least, not violated them enough.) The IETF sargeant at arms should just do an evaluation of the person's history, relative to the petition, and publish their assessment. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking +1.408.246.8253 dcrocker a t ... WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Hi - From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfinposted If the IESG has the time to compile blacklists and go on witch hunts, perhaps it doesn't have enough work to justify its existence. ... At the WG level, disruptive members cause an enormous increase in the effort required to get anything done. Our desire to ensure that minority viewpoints are heard puts us in a difficult bind when only ones expressing those viewpoints are individuals who also choose to behave badly. Invoking RFC 3934 at the WG level is not something that any WG chair would undertake lightly. I've gotten a lot of criticism for not using it more. I'm sure the IESG is fully aware of the gravity of invoking RFC 3683. The fact that it hasn't been used before speaks for itself. However, the reason the procedures exist at all is out of the recognition that a very few people are so abusive of our processes and culture that we need to be able to cut them off so that we can get real work done. If their technical arguments have real merit, they will reach us by other avenues. It would be so much simpler if everyone could be counted on to recognize (easy) and ignore (hard) the bad actors. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against JefseyMorfin posted
(this should not go on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but for lack of a better list... please disregard if it bothers you) Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: Sure there is - create your own page, write your petition text, and ask people to sign up there. I'll even share the PHP code with you if you want it! This is not what I call a symmetrical means to express disapproval : for the average reader, it take a *lot* more work to defend than to attack. So I take your answer is there is no symmetrical way and it is a lot harder to express disapproval than approval. This is what I call a slanted process, and I would deem it inappropriate in any oranization that prides itself on fair and balanced processes. Acutally I think it's probably Harald being able to just concern himself with spearheading his own issues for once after many years of service to the IETF which likely prevented him from taking sides on many issues. I certainly think that if someone feels passionately about preserving someone's rights to post to the list because they're input is that valuable they will take that course. This is not an IESG or administrative action in any way. It's the motion of one person to the organization. NOBODY IS IN ANY WAY LIMITING YOU FROM TAKING ANY ACTION! Not to mention the fact that there is quite a few levels of appeals built into this process just like any other. Note that the whole issue of list ban is treading on first amendment grounds in a way that could end up in court. Are you saying spammers have write to send us all emails we don't feel are valid every day? I distinctly recall complaining about an organization that was spamming many WG lists with conference postsings, and I didn't notice any vehment opposition on the grounds of free speech popping up. Quote from RFC which I guess you didn't read: Q: Is this censorship? A: Only if you believe in anarchy. What is important is that the rules surrounding PR-actions exhibit the same properties used by the rest of the consensus-based process. I have taken on the role of arguing *for* banning Jefsey from the IETF. I'm not neutral in any way, shape or form. It's the IESG's business to say whether or not the requirements of the RFC are fulfiled. This is what I call partial. Being partial is perfectly OK. It's just that I don't think the process should rely on partiality. I even think it should exclude partiality as much as possible. The way to do that here is to allow people to express their opinion in an unslanted way. Your page would be a perfect tool if it wasn't slanted His page is for him. It's not for the IETF. The reason we have rough consensus is specifically because nobody expects everyone to be impartial and perfect. The IESG decides based on evidence presented to it. One of the pieces of evidence is that the people (10 so far) who have signed the petition believe that Jefsey Morfin is being abusive of the consensus-driven process (that's a quote from RFC 3683). Others may want to present other relevant evidence. Presenting slanted evidence is hardly a positive action. You will always find a few people to ban a controversial poster. It will always be harder to find people on the defending side, because the individual interest in defending a (controversial) person is always low and will generally not justify defensive actions. That process will inevitably result in banning people even though a (possibly silent) majority doesn't approve it. This is not what I would call consensus-based decision. If nobody cares enough to mount the effortthat seems like some good evidence to me. It might be worth noting that this process just like any other requires rough consensus, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about. What, out of curiostiy, is better then evidence to present? Should we take a poll on who likes whom? Do we have any statistics on how many people have been banned from the list? You say inevitable but haven't really backed it up with any facts. I'm acting as advocate in this case. I'm not the jury. Or rather prosecutor ? PS: I recommend reading both RFC 3683 and a selection of Jefsey's messages before making up your mind about the case I haven't, and I'm not even sure I care. I'm worried about the process, and about the number of times it seems to be invoked. Banning should be exceptional. Now we are presented with two dubious (read non obvious, possibly requiring very careful inspection to arrive to a conclusion) cases in the space of a few days, and it appears that the process itself is hardly symmetrical and lacks clear consensus safeguards. In a balanced world, this would spell doom for RFC3683. I'm not glad sombody who didn't even choose to read the relavant documents is criticizing the process. I am glad to see this much discussion, which easily alays my fears of a bad choice
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: It doesn't make me feel good either. But the alternatives I saw were: - Don't do anything, and let Jefsey continue doing damage - Make a solo proposal (or one with its supporters gathered privately) to the IESG for a PR-action - Be public, and see who else agreed with my opinion what about: - killfile the person and encourage others to do the same? Is Usenet really that distant of a memory? And the dynamics would probably work the right way too: on Usenet, there can be an amusement factor associated with the abuse bottom's torment which makes for a sustained feedback loop. But this is a professional organization, not an electronic cocktail party so I'd expect convergence more often than the feedback loop. This leaves the chairs who would have to deal with the person, but one would assume that it would eventually get lonely doing write-only posts and eventually go away. Only if that didn't work should the posting death penalty be contemplated, IMO. Mike, with no opinion on the specific case ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
--On fredag, september 30, 2005 12:07:04 -0700 Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: It doesn't make me feel good either. But the alternatives I saw were: - Don't do anything, and let Jefsey continue doing damage - Make a solo proposal (or one with its supporters gathered privately) to the IESG for a PR-action - Be public, and see who else agreed with my opinion what about: - killfile the person and encourage others to do the same? Tried that. He's still yelling, and people regularly yell back at him. See petition text, effects. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
On 9/30/05 3:07 PM, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what about: - killfile the person and encourage others to do the same? Unfortunately that no longer works all that well on Usenet, either. The participant pool grows to the point where there's always somebody new, or somebody who thinks that the problem person has a point and who wants to discuss it, or someone who thinks the problem person doesn't have a point but has some ill-defined right to be heard, and so on. Additionally, there has to be some process for identifying problem persons. That can work well in some small, close-knit online communities where there's a very large set of shared values, but it doesn't work all that well here. Also, note that the IETF intends to make decisions by a modified consensus process and that process is actually pretty fragile. It's reasonable to provide mechanisms to protect the process, and I think it's a lot healthier if those mechanisms are transparent and as objective as might be possible under the circumstances. Mind you, I just freakin' hate this. But I don't think the process itself as described in 3683 is at all unreasonable. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:00:51 -0400 Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Margaret Wasserman writes: Harald is attempting to assemble information that he will use to propose a PR-action (a Posting Rights action), as described in RFC 3683. Once he has assembled this information, he will presumably use the information to persuade a member of the IESG (an AD) to sponsor this action. That AD would then be in charge of running a fair and open process to decide whether or not Jefsey Morphin's posting rights should be revoked. I confess that I'm uneasy about Harald's action. It has too much the air of an unpopularity contest -- every one who doesn't like Jefsey's should sign on to kick him off the mailing list. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb Hello; I think it should make you uneasy. Just wait until someone on the other end of this puts up a similar petition and gets a few thousands signatories after posting an inflammatory diary to the right blog or mailing list. FWIW, I have read through the various emails on this (including the emails to the IETF list from M Morphin), and I do not support Harald's action. OTOH, I have changed my mind on the other case based on Mr. Anderson's recent emails, and do support David Kessens's recent action. Regards Marshall Eubanks ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote: 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette committee, during the committee is considering a request, and after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such as this one which plague the IETF list. In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette committee, which means that after inventing this entire mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony. I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate the decision I can accept it and move on. That's another reason why I think it should be an unmanipulated membership. That may be true for you, OK. But that's irrelevant. What about someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to make a nuisance of himself? How long could someone who is genuinely determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be allowed to do so? I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in parparticular, although I do have some private opinions on this matter. The question is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner? It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and assuming that all of the participants won't violate societal norms an exploit said security hole. If this is considered irresponsible when designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when designing organizational policies? - Ted ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Mealling writes: entire discussion by smart people deleted for brevity Might I suggest all participants in this discussion figure out what you really want to use DNS for if you were to assume it didn't exist in the first place. Imagine going back in time to 1986 and explaining to everyone at the IETF the way things would develop and then, after they've stopped laughing, imagine what kind of system would have resulted. My personal suspicion is that two things would be very different: There wouldn't be one monolithic namespace/protocol/system. At least two systems would exist: one for hiding IP network layer topology from apps and another for describing and naming services for end users. The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. It might be what people today call peer to peer (although I have yet to find a good definition of what that means) but that might not be an issue since the names wouldn't be hierarchical. What I find humorous is that this community's default position seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what you'd think we're good at There are several crucial attributes that are hard to replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same answer everyone else should get. This is the problem with alternate roots -- depending on where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also what differentiates it from a search engine -- my applications don't know how to make choices. Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to Google-bombing to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. Finally, you need locality: people within an organization must be able to create their own names. It may be that some of these requiremets are fundamentally at odds with the notion of full decentralization. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: There are several crucial attributes that are hard to replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same answer everyone else should get. You're making assumptions that its one system. No other medium requires uniqueness for the names _people_ use. You and I are perfectly capable of understanding that there might be two Steven Bellovins in the world. Its the email routing system that requires uniqueness. There is no reason why the addresses that system uses need to be remotely understandable by humans. The identifier I use to look you up and be able to differentiate you from someone else would be run completely differently from the addressing system used to route a message through a store and forward network. This is the problem with alternate roots -- depending on where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also what differentiates it from a search engine -- my applications don't know how to make choices. And conflating all of that into one system is the problem. Take those things that humans use and separate them from those things that computers and networks need to get things done. Don't burden people with the uniqueness requirement when that's not the way they expect the world to work and don't burden the network with having to differentiate badly between service behaviors given nothing but an IP address and a port number. Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to Google-bombing to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. Again, you're conflating two different services that should be... Which is my point. Look at the problem from a purely requirements point of view and ignore what's been done to date. Finally, you need locality: people within an organization must be able to create their own names. Yep. It may be that some of these requiremets are fundamentally at odds with the notion of full decentralization. If you try and shove it all in one system, sure The addressing requirements of IP addresses and SMTP addresses are different and probably fundamentally at odds with each other. Does that mean you still force both to use something that doesn't satisfy either system? No Reexamine the premises -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: UN
Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Although what WSIS may or may not decide is undoubtedly of interest to the Internet community, I really think it is a distraction here and now until there are concrete questions for us to discuss. Our community's route to the WSIS discussions is through the ISOC - where basic membership is free, by the way. The time to have discussions is before the concrete proposals are put on the table. Once there is a plan on the table it is usually too late. The Internet has affected the entire global economy. It should not be a surprise then that control of the Internet is a global political issue. There are three viable defense strategies. One is to be strong enough to defeat any enemy that might threaten you, the second is to make an alliance to achieve that end, the third is to establish a situation where occupation is simply not worthwhile. At the moment the IETF appears to be relying entirely on the second option. That relies on the powerful ally being willing and able to continue support indefinitely. It would be better to consider making use of the third strategy in addition. Defense is important but it should be the last resort of diplomacy. The actual issues most of the countries that are raising the governance issue are concerned about are of equal concern to the IETF community, at least in the abstract. Nobody in the IETF is opposed to global Internet access. One way to preserve the current institutions in place would be to set out a set of basic principles that would be considered binding. For example every country has an absolute right to connect to the Internet. One important consequence of this would be that DNS root zone allocations must not be withheld as a means of imposing a sanction. This is a serious concern to certain countries even though attempting to do so would be improbable. The other more practical consequence is consideration of what will happen when the IPv4 address space is finally exhausted. I suggest people read Jarred Diamond's Collapse for ideas on what might happen when the last IPv4 address block is cut. I suspect it would be similar to what happened on Easter Island when the tribes that had cut down all their own large trees found they needed wood. It is likely to be ugly, and hypothesizing an instantaneous migration to IPv6 does not make the problem go away. A statement to the effect that the US will be in the same boat as everyone else when IPv4 space runs out would go a long way to alleviate concerns here. And yes I know that people have been predicting the end of IPv4 address space for years. I bet people who were worried about deforrestation on Easter Island were also told 'people have been predicting that we will run out of trees some day and they have always been wrong in the past'. We are bound to run out of IPv4 addresses sooner or later. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
--On fredag, september 30, 2005 16:36:13 -0400 Michael Mealling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no reason why the addresses that system uses need to be remotely understandable by humans. The identifier I use to look you up and be able to differentiate you from someone else would be run completely differently from the addressing system used to route a message through a store and forward network. X.400 tried that. So did X.25. I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that its unique identifiers were *memorable*. Harald ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Mealling writes: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Reexamine the premises I am -- these are my premises. I lived far too long in the uucp world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble. Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and that's what I do for a living. I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Mealling writes: Steven M. Bellovin wrote: Reexamine the premises I am -- these are my premises. I lived far too long in the uucp world to enjoy non-unique names; they led to nothing but trouble. Again you're talking about mail routing and addressing mechanisms when the people that use DNS in their web browser are looking for a smart search interface that understands better what they're after and why. Why do those two applications have to use the same addressing scheme? Many of the political problems with DNS have nothing to do with routing email and have everything to do with the fact that its what your grandmother is using as an interface. Some of the other requirements are security requirements, and that's what I do for a living. Sure security requires a level of exactness that you shouldn't burden the user with or else he won't use the system I agree that the current DNS has serious problems, most notably in the trademark sphere. That doesn't mean that its other premises are wrong; there are other navigational systems that yield unique results besides treees. And what I'm suggesting is that uniqueness is a requirement of networks and system, not people. The issues the UN has with the way DNS is run have to do with the fact that you're trying to apply a requirement of the network to society and that creates problems. IMHO, we should look at building a system that works the way people use identifiers and identity and then get that to work with the existing network we have. -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process
Ted, One way to deal with the fact that having a fair and impartial selection process might occasionally get you a bad egg is to have an equally fair mechanism for impeaching a member of the selected group. If I am recalling things correctly, isn't that how the same issue is dealt with in the NomCom process? -- Eric -- -Original Message- -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of -- Theodore Ts'o -- Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 4:00 PM -- To: Nick Staff -- Cc: ietf@ietf.org -- Subject: Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process -- -- -- On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote: -- 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette -- committee, during the committee is considering a request, and -- after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of -- scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such -- as this one which plague the IETF list. -- In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser -- will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette -- committee, which means that after inventing this entire -- mechanism, it may not have any effect other than -- prolonging the agony. -- -- I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even -- if I hate the -- decision I can accept it and move on. That's another -- reason why I think it -- should be an unmanipulated membership. -- -- That may be true for you, OK. But that's irrelevant. What about -- someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to -- make a nuisance of himself? How long could someone who is genuinely -- determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be -- allowed to -- do so? -- -- I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in -- parparticular, -- although I do have some private opinions on this matter. -- The question -- is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner? -- It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and -- assuming that all of the participants won't violate -- societal norms an -- exploit said security hole. If this is considered -- irresponsible when -- designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when -- designing organizational policies? -- -- - Ted -- -- ___ -- Ietf mailing list -- Ietf@ietf.org -- https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: UN plans to take over our job!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:31:17AM -0400, Will McAfee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 40 lines which said: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/09/28/wsis_geneva/ There is no discussion here of a plan to take over IETF job (when you say our job, I assume, from the mailing list it is posted on, that you refer to IETFers). The root DNS zone or the IP address allocation (the real subjects of the discussion at the WSIS) are not managed by IETF so we have nothing to win or lose here. That is not quite true. I have had discussions with parties who are fully aware of the difference between ICANN and the IETF and it is clear they want to take over both. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Melinda Shore writes: Unfortunately that no longer works all that well on Usenet, either. The participant pool grows to the point where there's always somebody new, or somebody who thinks that the problem person has a point and who wants to discuss it, or someone who thinks the problem person doesn't have a point but has some ill-defined right to be heard, and so on. You say it as though these were bad things. That can work well in some small, close-knit online communities where there's a very large set of shared values, but it doesn't work all that well here. That is, small communities where everyone has the same opinion and no deviations are tolerated. Mind you, I just freakin' hate this. But I don't think the process itself as described in 3683 is at all unreasonable. You'll hate it even more when they come looking for you instead. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfin posted
Randy Presuhn writes: At the WG level, disruptive members cause an enormous increase in the effort required to get anything done. How hard can it be to delete messages? Our desire to ensure that minority viewpoints are heard puts us in a difficult bind when only ones expressing those viewpoints are individuals who also choose to behave badly. You can just ignore people who behave badly. Why must they be silenced for everyone just because you don't want to hear them? Invoking RFC 3934 at the WG level is not something that any WG chair would undertake lightly. I don't even understand why this is an RFC. What does it have to do with the technical functioning of the Internet? What next? An RFC establishing an official religion? I'm sure the IESG is fully aware of the gravity of invoking RFC 3683. I doubt that. If it were that aware, no such RFC would exist in the first place. However, the reason the procedures exist at all is out of the recognition that a very few people are so abusive of our processes and culture that we need to be able to cut them off so that we can get real work done. Translation: Everyone reaches a point where he prefers to censor others rather than tolerate them. If their technical arguments have real merit, they will reach us by other avenues. If other avenues work, you don't need mailing lists, do you? It would be so much simpler if everyone could be counted on to recognize (easy) and ignore (hard) the bad actors. If people don't want to ignore them, why is it your duty to do their thinking for them? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On There are several crucial attributes that are hard to replicate that way. One is uniqueness: whenever I do a query for a name, I get back exactly one answer, and it's the same answer everyone else should get. This is the problem with alternate roots -- depending on where you are, you can get a different answer. It's also what differentiates it from a search engine -- my applications don't know how to make choices. Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people do not want to connect to the rest of the world. I have a private zone set up in my house on .local for testing. I am sure there are similar military nets. I have no idea why anyone would prefer (say) .gprs over .gprs.arpa or the like. Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do try to do something silly (e.g. Kyle's mom gets congress to exclude .ca). Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to Google-bombing to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. I don't think that this is what Michael was suggesting. His point as I understand it is that DNS is designed to resolve a name to a machine rather than a name,service pair to a machine. Subsequently we have developed mechanisms such as MX and SRV that try to change this but people continue to insist on the original architecture as the only legitimate approach. Witness all the shouting that has gon on around attempts to store policy information in the DNS. Today a DNS name is a conceptual relationship to a collection of services. Finally, you need locality: people within an organization must be able to create their own names. Arbitrary registration of top level domains would not have prevented local delegation. The problem with monolithic DNS is that it forces hierarchy where none exists. There is a distinction between commercial, educational and non-profit enterprises but it is not a very important one. It is certainly not important enough for them to require separate name spaces. Different TLDs for different countries is also kinda bogus. If we were redesigning the DNS today the root would contain as much information people cared to put in it. We would work out some other scheme for load balancing etc. The .edu/.com scheme really reflects the NSF funding criteria of the day. However the fact remains that we are not redesigning DNS from scratch and it has largely been fixed already - if we choose to recognize the fact. One point made by Michael I think people should really take account of: What I find humorous is that this community's default position seems to be to attempt to play politics with those who are professionals at it rather than solving the problems with technology which is what you'd think we're good at This is international power politics at the highest level. The real issue here is not governance of the Internet, that is just a convenient pretext. There is a diplomatic battle going on here that threatens to become a real war. Diplomats prefer to avoid wars so they invented 'protocol' which at certain times mean that the participants go off and find something they can fight over that allows them to demonstrate the stakes and their positions with less risk of actual fighting. This is of course the main reason why most people would prefer to avoid that type of involvement. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. There are lots of users of the Internet besides trademark holders. I don't see why this latter group deserves special consideration. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. I always get nervous when I hear talk like this. I can picture the 5000-page committee-designed specification already. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: Beyond that, the mapping should be under control of the appropriate party. I don't want the moral equivalent to Google-bombing to be able to divert, say, my incoming mail. I don't think that this is what Michael was suggesting. His point as I understand it is that DNS is designed to resolve a name to a machine rather than a name,service pair to a machine. Sort of. What I was trying to get at was that DNS is designed to resolve an identifier to a machine for consumption by computer programs, not as a human factors component of a user facing system capable of helping humans get things done that humans care about. Its the difference between forcing my grandmother to learn SQL to do a search and giving her Ask Jeeves. To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite polititicain and instead we're going to do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed And maybe that work doesn't belong here -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: Again, you're conflating two different services that should be... Which is my point. Look at the problem from a purely requirements point of view and ignore what's been done to date. Look at the problem from an implementation point of view and remain realistic as to what is possible if one wants any semblance of order and performance. I have. As have others. See the following: draft-daigle-iris-slsreg-00.txt draft-hollenbeck-epp-sls-00.txt All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup... Reexamine the premises Don't fix what isn't broken. Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of users who consider the current system to be broken. And they have money and power so they're going to find a solution. The question is whether this organization is going to be involved in that answer or not. You can either sit back and feel smug about thinking your solution is right or you can address the perceived problems of the users and provide them with technical solutions to it -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: The system that faced the users would be inherently trademark friendly and wouln't be hierarchical. There are lots of users of the Internet besides trademark holders. I don't see why this latter group deserves special consideration. Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it represents a pretty good description of how human beings cognitively use names and words. It has many centuries of operational experience and it apparently works for everything humans need it to. But for some reason those of us who designed the Internet seem to think we're above all of that and can dictate a system to the end users that's dissonate with how they actually think and view the world. The output of such a system wouldn't be an IP address but instead a complex record that described a compound object called a 'service'. I always get nervous when I hear talk like this. I can picture the 5000-page committee-designed specification already. Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to be working just fine -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
David, Two minor points of calibration. I've got (strong) opinions about some of this, but am going to try to write this note as neutrally as possible, just explaining where things stand. --On Friday, 30 September, 2005 14:34 -0700 Dave Singer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... a) Design of the protocols and specifications; the IETF does that, and I don't think anyone is thinking of taking that away. So The UN is taking on the IETF's job is a non-suggestion non-starter. Without getting into a discussion of how legitimate the claims are or how likely any decisions that might be made would mean anything, there are definitely forces within the WSIS process that believe that the IETF has outlived its usefulness, that the development of Internet protocols and technical standards has become too important to be left to a bunch of undisciplined volunteer engineers (that is pretty close to a quote) and needs to be turned over to a body in which decision-making rests with governments, etc. That body would presumably, but not necessarily, be the ITU which is part of the UN system. ... I, for one, would be much happier in a world where I know who has the authority to decide whether you really are a company with that name -- with the answer being, the authorities in the identified area. So, adding non-geographic TLDs to my mind, is a mistake; I'd prefer fewer of them. Deprecate .com in favor of .co.us (or .co.hm or wherever else you want to be). And if Tuvalu wants to continue to sell its name to first-come-first-served, it may; I will soon learn to give .tv names the same (low) level of trust I give .com. If this were the agreement, the question of who operates the root DNSs, routers, and the like would be almost as uncontroversial as to who designs the protocols, in my opinion. Ultimately someone has to operate the keyboard that puts lines/ records into what ultimately becomes the root zone file. And someone has to supervise that person/ entity. When someone comes along and says (to use your example), the nameservers for .hm should be X, Y, and Z, a determination has to be made as to whether that request is legitimate and authorized wrt either the current administration of .HM or the government responsible for Heard Island and the McDonald Islands. Note that statement about legitimacy and authority actually involves several choices which might need to be made. Now, for better or worse, that evaluation process, particularly for ccTLDs, has been the source of an immense amount of controversy. Those who get most excited about the status quo don't acknowledge that ICANN is a legitimate, international, multi-stakeholder, private-sector organization but, instead, refer to it simply as the US Government Contractor. They point out that the US Government has asserted responsibility for, and control of, the root zone and that it clearly has the ability to overrule ICANN in determinations about root zone entries. They then proceed to say that the determinations as to the legitimacy of requests to change the records for a given ccTLD should not be in the hands of any one country, and say it in a way that makes it very clear that the statement implies especially a country they don't like, don't trust, and which has a reputation for throwing its weight around. So that situation is, in practice, anything but uncontroversial. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: You're making assumptions that its one system. No other medium requires uniqueness for the names _people_ use. Any medium that does not require it tends to be extremely inefficient and error-prone. You and I are perfectly capable of understanding that there might be two Steven Bellovins in the world. When there are twenty million John Smiths in the world, the problem becomes impossible to manage. And conflating all of that into one system is the problem. Take those things that humans use and separate them from those things that computers and networks need to get things done. That's what the DNS does. But the greater the distance separating the two, the more complex, slow, and error-prone the system will be. You cannot allow human users to work in a disorderly way and expect to get an orderly result at the machine level. The system cannot think on behalf of the people using it. Don't burden people with the uniqueness requirement when that's not the way they expect the world to work ... They don't seem to have a problem with that burden when it comes to using telephones. ... and don't burden the network with having to differentiate badly between service behaviors given nothing but an IP address and a port number. What's bad about the differentiation? Again, you're conflating two different services that should be... Which is my point. Look at the problem from a purely requirements point of view and ignore what's been done to date. Look at the problem from an implementation point of view and remain realistic as to what is possible if one wants any semblance of order and performance. Reexamine the premises Don't fix what isn't broken. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Hallam-Baker, Phillip writes: Alternate roots are bogus. The only case where they work is where people do not want to connect to the rest of the world. That's exactly what a lot of national governments would like to do. Fragmentation of the root is a real threat, but only if people do try to do something silly (e.g. Kyle's mom gets congress to exclude .ca). That's exactly what a lot of national governments would like to do. Subsequently we have developed mechanisms such as MX and SRV that try to change this but people continue to insist on the original architecture as the only legitimate approach. Witness all the shouting that has gon on around attempts to store policy information in the DNS. When every change must be propagated to a billion machines, a conservative approach is best. Arbitrary registration of top level domains would not have prevented local delegation. The problem with monolithic DNS is that it forces hierarchy where none exists. But it does exist, just as it does for the telephone network. If we were redesigning the DNS today the root would contain as much information people cared to put in it. If we were redesigning it today, it would never actually be up and running. Instead, it would be continually revised in endless volumes of specifications written by people with nothing better to do in life, and nobody would implement more than a fraction of the spec, and they'd always be several versions behind, and their implementations would never be quite correct, and nothing would ever work together very smoothly at all. The reason the Internet is successful is that it was designed before the bureaucrats took over. The reason X.400 failed is that it was designed after the bureaucrats took over. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it represents a pretty good description of how human beings cognitively use names and words. No, it simply represents the way trademark holders force others to do their bidding. IP law is already enough of a pox on society as it is, there's no reason to make it worse by encoding it in the world's only global computer network. It has many centuries of operational experience and it apparently works for everything humans need it to. Centuries of experience for trademarks? I seem to recall it being much younger than that. And abuse of such concepts has increased exponentially over the past few decades. But for some reason those of us who designed the Internet seem to think we're above all of that and can dictate a system to the end users that's dissonate with how they actually think and view the world. Except that 99.999% of all Internet users do _not_ think in terms of trademark law. Only a handful of extremely wealthy corporations think in that way. Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to be working just fine What do URIs not have now that they need? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup... So is the current system. Why does it have to change? Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of users who consider the current system to be broken. More specifically, there are certain entities that feel they don't have enough control over the system. They don't want a system in which anyone can do anything, even if they don't approve of it personally. Freedom frightens them. And they have money and power so they're going to find a solution. Translation: They have money and power so they are going to eliminate freedom. The question is whether this organization is going to be involved in that answer or not. You can either sit back and feel smug about thinking your solution is right or you can address the perceived problems of the users and provide them with technical solutions to it I don't hear too many _users_ complaining about anything. It's mainly corporations and governments who want to control every bit that passes over the Net. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite polititicain and instead we're going to do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed Do it with telephones first, as a proof of concept. If there's still a usable telephone network after that, then perhaps it might be worthy of consideration for the Internet. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: To get specific for a moment, my suggestion here is that the IETF take a look at what the W3C and the general web community is doing around navigation, tagging (see Technorati, del.icio.us, flickr), advances in NLP that Google is working on, etc. Perhaps the solution is to tell the world that DNS isn't really meant for your grandmother or your favorite polititicain and instead we're going to do something at the web layer that's more in tune with how people are actually using the Internet, not how mail gets routed Do it with telephones first, as a proof of concept. If there's still a usable telephone network after that, then perhaps it might be worthy of consideration for the Internet. Being one of the co-authors of the ENUM spec, I've actually paid attention to how that's all working out. Have you checked into how Skype and VOIP in general are working internationally lately? Not an E.164 phone number anywhere in the entire thing. Its all identifiers that look like AOL screen names and peering agreements. And it seems to be working out just fine -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to be working just fine What do URIs not have now that they need? As the result of a service lookup they only need something that identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an identifier for... See the various specs that use NAPTR records for some examples of how the Service field is used... -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
* * X.400 tried that. So did X.25. * * I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that * its unique identifiers were *memorable*. * * * Harald * * And unlike X.500, the DNS was *conceptually SIMPLE*. Historical note: in the early/mid 1980s, the IAB and its US government funders were very concerned with the name lookup problem. They realized that the DNS was designed for host name lookup. The government tasked the IAB with developing a yellow pages service to complement the white pages of the DNS. But this effort got wrapped entirely around the complexity of X.500, a top-down standard with little/no running code, and died. This will all be found in early IAB meeting minutes. Bob Braden ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: As the result of a service lookup they only need something that identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an identifier for... What's wrong with http at the front, and/or a port number at the back? ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: Have you checked into how Skype and VOIP in general are working internationally lately? No. I already have a telephone. Not an E.164 phone number anywhere in the entire thing. Its all identifiers that look like AOL screen names and peering agreements. And it seems to be working out just fine Okay, now make it work for the existing telephone system. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: Michael Mealling writes: As the result of a service lookup they only need something that identifies the class and subclass of the service the URI is an identifier for... What's wrong with http at the front, and/or a port number at the back? Those are network concepts. The service I'm talking about has to do with the task the user is actually attempting to accomplish. http://foo.com:1235/bla.php Tells me nothing about whether I can use that for the I want the current weather report service or if its a DAV entry point for doing collaborative document management That's my last one on this thread. I'm not in this business anymore -MM -- Michael Mealling Masten Space Systems, Inc. VP Business Development 473 Sapena Ct. Office: +1-678-581-9656Suite 23 Cell: +1-678-640-6884 Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://masten-space.com/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfinposted
Hi - From: Anthony G. Atkielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ietf@ietf.org Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 2:52 PM Subject: Re: Petition to the IESG for a PR-action against Jefsey Morfinposted Randy Presuhn writes: At the WG level, disruptive members cause an enormous increase in the effort required to get anything done. How hard can it be to delete messages? Our desire to ensure that minority viewpoints are heard puts us in a difficult bind when only ones expressing those viewpoints are individuals who also choose to behave badly. You can just ignore people who behave badly. Why must they be silenced for everyone just because you don't want to hear them? Invoking RFC 3934 at the WG level is not something that any WG chair would undertake lightly. I don't even understand why this is an RFC. What does it have to do with the technical functioning of the Internet? What next? An RFC establishing an official religion? I'm sure the IESG is fully aware of the gravity of invoking RFC 3683. I doubt that. If it were that aware, no such RFC would exist in the first place. However, the reason the procedures exist at all is out of the recognition that a very few people are so abusive of our processes and culture that we need to be able to cut them off so that we can get real work done. Translation: Everyone reaches a point where he prefers to censor others rather than tolerate them. If their technical arguments have real merit, they will reach us by other avenues. If other avenues work, you don't need mailing lists, do you? It would be so much simpler if everyone could be counted on to recognize (easy) and ignore (hard) the bad actors. If people don't want to ignore them, why is it your duty to do their thinking for them? ... The context of my response was Anthony's earlier posting which mused: If the IESG has the time to compile blacklists and go on witch hunts, perhaps it doesn't have enough work to justify its existence. My answer to Anthony's questions is that I've experienced one of these onslaughts while serving as a WG co-chair. In that position, one does NOT have the luxury of killfiles, and can NOT simply ignore their technical arguments, particularly when the postings are filled with threats of appeals and other invocations of time-and-resource consuming process mechanisms. When the bad behaviour triggers bad behaviour in other WG members and distracts the WG from its deliverables, we all suffer, but *especially* the ADs and WG chairs. We have far too much to do as it is. Dealing with trivial-issue DoS attacks, psuedo-technical postings that must be scanned in hope of somehow finding a plausible concern, and constant threats of appeal *dramatically* increases the workload. Randy ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] there are definitely forces within the WSIS process that believe that the IETF has outlived its usefulness, that the development of Internet protocols and technical standards has become too important to be left to a bunch of undisciplined volunteer engineers (that is pretty close to a quote) Far be it from me to defend the IETF (of which I don't have that high an opinion these days), but the historical irony here is a bit too rich for me to pass up. Those with very long memories will remember when the Internet Working Group (the predecessor to the IETF) was told, by another international body, to roll up their their toy academic network and take it home (again, pretty close to a quote, but I'm going from memory here; perhaps someone else can correct my undoubtly-failing memory). I don't know what the IETF will-be/is-being replaced by, but one thing I think you can bet on it *not* being replaced by is some standards body blessed by a bunch of international bureacrats acting at the behest of their governments. Been there, done that. Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: UN plans to take over our job!
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] IP address allocation (the real subjects of the discussion at the WSIS) are not managed by IETF so we have nothing to win or lose here. Actually, we do, at least in the case of IP addresses. If some WSIS-blessed bureacracy decides to make IP addresses portable (like phone numbers in a number of jurisdictions), the technical people will be in deep do-do. (And of course that issue is 100% the same in IPv4/6, since the semantics of IPv4/6 addresses are basically the same, as are the routing [path-selection] mechanisms in both.) Noel ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: Because, particular codifications of it in the law aside, it represents a pretty good description of how human beings cognitively use names and words. No, it simply represents the way trademark holders force others to do their bidding. IP law is already enough of a pox on society as it is, there's no reason to make it worse by encoding it in the world's only global computer network. It has many centuries of operational experience and it apparently works for everything humans need it to. Centuries of experience for trademarks? I seem to recall it being much younger than that. And abuse of such concepts has increased exponentially over the past few decades. Perhaps he's referring to the fact that civilizations have dealt with couterfiting and fraudulence for centuries. Any sort of identity notion at the highest level is really just a trademark. We've just added things like social security nubmers, places of birth etc. to our structure for naming people. I'd really be quite happy if I was never again to mistype one character of a URL only to end up at some site that is piggybacking on the few hundred people a day who make a typographical error. All of the issues with fake sites exploiting multilingual character sets and other issues in the infrastructure that allow phising attacks etc. all involve a notion of trademark or unique identity in one way or another. But for some reason those of us who designed the Internet seem to think we're above all of that and can dictate a system to the end users that's dissonate with how they actually think and view the world. Except that 99.999% of all Internet users do _not_ think in terms of trademark law. Only a handful of extremely wealthy corporations think in that way. Well, I didn't want to get into specifics but from what I've seen a URI with a service identifier tag seems to be fine for everyone that has looked a the problem So you shouldn't be nervous, the web seems to be working just fine What do URIs not have now that they need? Now that everyone can have a SIP address for everything.nothing at all! Seriously though I'm sure we could come up with lots of one off corner cases, but all in all considering the encumberance of technology evolution I'd say we're doing pretty good. -Tom smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Michael Mealling writes: All very deployable and rather easy to build and setup... So is the current system. Why does it have to change? Well, given the origin of this thread, there are large numbers of users who consider the current system to be broken. More specifically, there are certain entities that feel they don't have enough control over the system. They don't want a system in which anyone can do anything, even if they don't approve of it personally. Freedom frightens them. Well certainly the network controls in place in china are a good example of this. HOWEVER I'd say really it all boild down to power. And they have money and power so they're going to find a solution. Translation: They have money and power so they are going to eliminate freedom. The question is whether this organization is going to be involved in that answer or not. You can either sit back and feel smug about thinking your solution is right or you can address the perceived problems of the users and provide them with technical solutions to it I don't hear too many _users_ complaining about anything. It's mainly corporations and governments who want to control every bit that passes over the Net. YES! Not to mention the plethora of engineers and geeks who know too much about what's going on and CAN complain. I'd say as more of our knowledge pervades society more people could understand the issues that bother some people. -Tom smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process
From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:00:18PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote: 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette committee, during the committee is considering a request, and after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such as this one which plague the IETF list. In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette committee, which means that after inventing this entire mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony. I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate the decision I can accept it and move on. That's another reason why I think it should be an unmanipulated membership. That may be true for you, OK. But that's irrelevant. What about someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to make a nuisance of himself? How long could someone who is genuinely determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be allowed to do so? I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in parparticular, although I do have some private opinions on this matter. The question is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner? It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and assuming that all of the participants won't violate societal norms an exploit said security hole. If this is considered irresponsible when designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when designing organizational policies? - Ted Absolutely I agree Ted. I was just trying to express how it would effect me as that's the only position I can (sometimes) speak authoritatively on. Ultimately I don't see what you're suggesting that has any addition controls - whether it's a committee or a single person the same appeal process can be used and the same controls put in place. If you are referring to one of the committee members being wacko I think I provided sufficient control for that (as nothing requires unanimous vote and voting can be forced by majority). If it's a nut job list participant then I guess I could call some old friends in South Central Los Angeles to chop off their fingers but then there's always speech recognition...I guess my question to you is please tell me exactly what your concern is (if you want to do this off-list so we don't annoy everyone that's cool with me) and I promise I will address them and try to work with you to find an agreeable solution. Best, Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
--On Friday, 30 September, 2005 19:00 -0400 Noel Chiappa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] there are definitely forces within the WSIS process that believe that the IETF has outlived its usefulness, that the development of Internet protocols and technical standards has become too important to be left to a bunch of undisciplined volunteer engineers (that is pretty close to a quote) Far be it from me to defend the IETF (of which I don't have that high an opinion these days), but the historical irony here is a bit too rich for me to pass up. Those with very long memories will remember when the Internet Working Group (the predecessor to the IETF) was told, by another international body, to roll up their their toy academic network and take it home (again, pretty close to a quote, but I'm going from memory here; perhaps someone else can correct my undoubtly-failing memory). I don't know what the IETF will-be/is-being replaced by, but one thing I think you can bet on it *not* being replaced by is some standards body blessed by a bunch of international bureacrats acting at the behest of their governments. Been there, done that. As I tried to indicate in my earlier note, I was trying to write it in a very neutral fashion, just describing the forces at work, rather than my opinion of them or their plausibility. I do have that long a memory. Writing the note that way was hard. For those who do not know the history, are curious, or who might find themselves in the position of advising those who are part of these discussions, Appendix C to Marshall Rose's _The Internet Message: Closing the Book with Electronic Mail_, Prentice-Hall, 1993 makes extremely illuminating and entertaining reading. With a dozen year's hindsight, I'd go so far as to suggest that Marshall's observations about OSI and the process that produced it were too optimistic. john ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Reexamining premises (was Re: UN plans to take over our job!)
Harald, On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:59:47PM +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: --On fredag, september 30, 2005 16:36:13 -0400 Michael Mealling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no reason why the addresses that system uses need to be remotely understandable by humans. The identifier I use to look you up and be able to differentiate you from someone else would be run completely differently from the addressing system used to route a message through a store and forward network. X.400 tried that. So did X.25. I think one of the less-appreciated reasons the Internet succeedd was that its unique identifiers were *memorable*. And the use of a very simple characterset for these identifiers helped a lot too. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
