Minority opinions [Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]]
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting. There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already. Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally involved in. 3246 is the consensus and 3248 is the minority opinion. Unfortunately not. RFC 3246 is Standard Track, RFC 3248 is informational. RFC 3246 is published. They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is the one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two standards for the same bits. This case is when two IETF groups have different opinions. The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG consensus, That doesn't affect what the IETF publishes. The IETF publishes the documents that it reaches consensus on, after considering all contributions. Liaisons from other SDOs are considered. That doesn't mean we take them as instructions or have any obligations. When we become aware of another SDO working on an alternative solution, we normally attempt to engage in dialogue, but there is no algorithm for how that dialogue will terminate. while the Internet is no more a place where one can consider that an erroneous RFC supported by market leaders will quickly deprecate and not hurt. The resources of the other SSDO are dedicated to its own business. It may however make the effort of a QA delegate to the Internet standard process. Experience shows that without an MoU a conflict may quickly develop (as if two foot-ball teams met, but one team would, in addition to be a challenger, have only one player present. This is all the more true if the results of the match counts for the world cup). The minority position would avoid to enter into an SSDO/IETF complex MoU and liaison committee (I feel you are not found of anyway). All the more than the problem may be purely occasional and the solution be to politely pay attention to mutual needs rather than to ban the SSDO liaison. This can only be detrimental to a final common solution and would resolve nothing since the SSDO has human resources a plenty. If people from another SDO wish to submit a draft for publication as an RFC, I can't see any reason why the RFC 3248 approach won't work. I can't see any need to add more process than we already have. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Minority opinions [Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]]
At 13:32 29/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is the one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two standards for the same bits. Dear Brian, this is why we need to find ways to help consensual standard publication first. The problem is worst if the document claims to be a BCP. This case is when two IETF groups have different opinions. The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG consensus, That doesn't affect what the IETF publishes. The IETF publishes the documents that it reaches consensus on, after considering all contributions. Liaisons from other SDOs are considered. That doesn't mean we take them as instructions or have any obligations. We should not be here to develop non-interoperability. However we know that competition may lead to some oddities. This is the theme of RFC 3869. When we become aware of another SDO working on an alternative solution, we normally attempt to engage in dialogue, but there is no algorithm for how that dialogue will terminate. normally should be replaced by SHOULD. All what I call for is not even to engage in a dialog, but to respect others and not refuse the dialog. And a way to politely but clearly address the possible non-technical motivations. I think an Ombudsman can help that. And that the minority position is the way to inform that he has been informed and taken the issue seriously. The impact is only to make the things even. Disfavors no one, helps everyone. If people from another SDO wish to submit a draft for publication as an RFC, I can't see any reason why the RFC 3248 approach won't work. I can't see any need to add more process than we already have. The RFC 3248 approach is internal to IETF. Other SSDOs have their own charters and agenda. We are talking of interoperability. When IETF disregards others, it is lucky others pay attention and delegate a resource they need. Forcing others to become more competent in a whole IETF area they are not interested in to publish a document so the better win, just to prevent a lobby from creating a profitable interoperability conflict with other commercial or non-profit/publicly funded SSDO, is not the way I see global networking. Please consider RFC 3869. I may be wrong though. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Minority opinions [Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]]
At 13:32 29/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is the one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two standards for the same bits. Dear Brian, this is why we need to find ways to help consensual standard publication first. The problem is worst if the document claims to be a BCP. This case is when two IETF groups have different opinions. The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG consensus, That doesn't affect what the IETF publishes. The IETF publishes the documents that it reaches consensus on, after considering all contributions. Liaisons from other SDOs are considered. That doesn't mean we take them as instructions or have any obligations. We should not be here to develop non-interoperability. However we know that competition may lead to some oddities. This is the theme of RFC 3869. So you said: 1) we shouldn't develop anything that disagrees with anything else (implying external consensus as well as internal consensus). -AND- 2) we should support spreading minority opinions, and the minority opinion should be of the same status as the main opinion. That position is untenable. First you complained about the lack of minority opinion, then the difference in status, then the fact that everyone didn't just hang around waiting for everyone to agree. Perhaps instead of repeated disagreement with people's positions, you should offer a clear concise vision of your own. As far as finding a consensual standard, in anything I believe an open mike in coordination with rough consensus and running code will always be the best answer. When we become aware of another SDO working on an alternative solution, we normally attempt to engage in dialogue, but there is no algorithm for how that dialogue will terminate. normally should be replaced by SHOULD. Why? So people who disagree internally can form an external body to essentially propigate a DOS situation on our progress? So instead of focusing on the technical issue at hand we can have engineers and scientists (mostly) concerned with politics and diplomacy? I do not agree at all. All what I call for is not even to engage in a dialog, but to respect others and not refuse the dialog. And a way to politely but clearly address the possible non-technical motivations. I think an Ombudsman can help that. And that the minority position is the way to inform that he has been informed and taken the issue seriously. The impact is only to make the things even. Disfavors no one, helps everyone. Who is not permitted to make their voice heard on an IETF list? Are you saying non-technical matters should in any way trump technical issues? I don't believe that idea will find much of a home in this forum. If people from another SDO wish to submit a draft for publication as an RFC, I can't see any reason why the RFC 3248 approach won't work. I can't see any need to add more process than we already have. The RFC 3248 approach is internal to IETF. Other SSDOs have their own charters and agenda. We are talking of interoperability. When IETF disregards others, it is lucky others pay attention and delegate a resource they need. Forcing others to become more competent in a whole IETF area they are not interested in to publish a document so the better win, just to prevent a lobby from creating a profitable interoperability conflict with other commercial or non-profit/publicly funded SSDO, is not the way I see global networking. Please consider RFC 3869. I may be wrong though. I don't know about wrong, but seemingly political. It seems you've managed to find fault in many other's statements (sometimes to the point of contradicting your own), and succeded in prognosticating doomsday scenarios all without suggesting a proactive response or outcome in anyway. -Tom smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
... My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting. There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already. Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally involved in. 3246 is the consensus and 3248 is the minority opinion. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: ... My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting. There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already. Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally involved in. 3246 is the consensus and 3248 is the minority opinion. Unfortunately not. RFC 3246 is Standard Track, RFC 3248 is informational. RFC 3246 is published. This case is when two IETF groups have different opinions. The case I refer to is when an SSDO consensus opposes an IETF-WG consensus, while the Internet is no more a place where one can consider that an erroneous RFC supported by market leaders will quickly deprecate and not hurt. The resources of the other SSDO are dedicated to its own business. It may however make the effort of a QA delegate to the Internet standard process. Experience shows that without an MoU a conflict may quickly develop (as if two foot-ball teams met, but one team would, in addition to be a challenger, have only one player present. This is all the more true if the results of the match counts for the world cup). The minority position would avoid to enter into an SSDO/IETF complex MoU and liaison committee (I feel you are not found of anyway). All the more than the problem may be purely occasional and the solution be to politely pay attention to mutual needs rather than to ban the SSDO liaison. This can only be detrimental to a final common solution and would resolve nothing since the SSDO has human resources a plenty. jfc ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Steve writes: Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a Last Call. Steve, I thought that RFC3683 is intended to apply drastic measures (see intro, page 4). RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2). I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an individual is disrupting normal WG process. Bert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Bert, David asked the IESG to consider a PR-action (posting rights action) against Dean. Posting rights actions are governed by RFC 3683. I agree that 3683 is used to apply drastic measures, but unfortunately those are the measures the AD saw as appropriate for Dean's supposed infractions. Even the RFC refers to applicable cases as serious situations, but again it was the AD who thought it fair to levy the harshest sentence at our disposal against Dean. It's judgment calls like that which make everything circumspect to me. nick -Original Message- From: Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:01 AM To: Steven M. Bellovin; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'IESG'; ietf@ietf.org Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list] Steve writes: Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a Last Call. Steve, I thought that RFC3683 is intended to apply drastic measures (see intro, page 4). RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2). I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an individual is disrupting normal WG process. Bert ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an individual is disrupting normal WG process. RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is concise enough to quote the applicable part in its entirety: ] ]A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages ] posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to ] be abusive of the consensus-driven process. If approved by the IESG, ] then: ] ] o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to ] that IETF mailing list removed; and, ] ] o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion, ] also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list. ] ] Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified ] and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year. ] ] One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be ] introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual. ] The IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when ] evaluating a new PR-action. If the posting rights are restored the ] individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing ] lists to have them restored. ] ] Regardless of whether the PR-action revokes or restores posting ] rights, the IESG follows the same algorithm as with its other ] actions: ] ] 1. it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to ] doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties; ] ] 2. it is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general ] discussion list; ] ] 3. it is discussed by the community; ] ] 4. it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally, ] ] 5. using the usual consensus-based process, it is decided upon by ] the IESG. ] ] Of course, as with all IESG actions, the appeals process outlined in ] [4] may be invoked to contest a PR-action approved by the IESG. ] ] Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is ] manageable. For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation ] of their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it ] should be possible to restrict the new email address. A PR-action under BC 83 is intended to be permanent. I certainly hope we _do_ have an IETF Last Call every time a WGC feels the need to _permanently_ revoke posting rights. RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2). ] ] As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals ] may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's ] progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the ] behavior by communication directly with the offending individual ] rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then ] the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last ] resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the ] approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer ] block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing ] list. This looks similar, but it does not require the one-year minimum, nor does it require a LastCall. Furthermore, this _has_been_done_ for Dean Anderson on dnsops. From the IESG minutes of 13 May 2004: ] ] 7.2 Approval to block participant on a WG list (Bert Wijnen) ] ] This management issue was discussed. The IESG agrees that Bert ] Wijnen may block posting rights for Dean Anderson on the dnsops ] mailing list if he refuses to stay on topic as per the list rules. which raises the question, Why are we even discussing this? -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an individual is disrupting normal WG process. RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is concise enough to quote the applicable part in its entirety: ] ]A PR-action identifies one or more individuals, citing messages ] posted by those individuals to an IETF mailing list, that appear to ] be abusive of the consensus-driven process. If approved by the IESG, ] then: ] ] o those identified on the PR-action have their posting rights to ] that IETF mailing list removed; and, ] ] o maintainers of any IETF mailing list may, at their discretion, ] also remove posting rights to that IETF mailing list. ] ] Once taken, this action remains in force until explicitly nullified ] and SHOULD remain in force for at least one year. ] ] One year after the PR-action is approved, a new PR-action MAY be ] introduced which restores the posting rights for that individual. ] The IESG SHOULD consider the frequency of nullifying requests when ] evaluating a new PR-action. If the posting rights are restored the ] individual is responsible for contacting the owners of the mailing ] lists to have them restored. ] ] Regardless of whether the PR-action revokes or restores posting ] rights, the IESG follows the same algorithm as with its other ] actions: ] ] 1. it is introduced by an IESG Area Director (AD), who, prior to ] doing so, may choose to inform the interested parties; ] ] 2. it is published as an IESG last call on the IETF general ] discussion list; ] ] 3. it is discussed by the community; ] ] 4. it is discussed by the IESG; and, finally, ] ] 5. using the usual consensus-based process, it is decided upon by ] the IESG. ] ] Of course, as with all IESG actions, the appeals process outlined in ] [4] may be invoked to contest a PR-action approved by the IESG. ] ] Working groups SHOULD ensure that their associated mailing list is ] manageable. For example, some may try to circumvent the revocation ] of their posting rights by changing email addresses; accordingly it ] should be possible to restrict the new email address. A PR-action under BC 83 is intended to be permanent. I certainly hope we _do_ have an IETF Last Call every time a WGC feels the need to _permanently_ revoke posting rights. RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2). ] ] As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals ] may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's ] progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the ] behavior by communication directly with the offending individual ] rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then ] the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last ] resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the ] approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer ] block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing ] list. This looks similar, but it does not require the one-year minimum, nor does it require a LastCall. Furthermore, this _has_been_done_ for Dean Anderson on dnsops. From the IESG minutes of 13 May 2004: ] ] 7.2 Approval to block participant on a WG list (Bert Wijnen) ] ] This management issue was discussed. The IESG agrees that Bert ] Wijnen may block posting rights for Dean Anderson on the dnsops ] mailing list if he refuses to stay on topic as per the list rules. which raises the question, Why are we even discussing this? -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] John- Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure for when an AD requests that the IESG remove someone's posting privileges from the IETF list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there isn't one then I'd have to ask that you refrain from making wildly unsupported claims as they are disruptive to the process. Thanks, Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Procedures for the IETF list (RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list])
The procedures for management of the IETF list are detailed in RFC 3005 (the IETF list charter). Note that there are presently selected IETF sergeants-at-arms. Harald --On 27. september 2005 03:58 -0700 Nick Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure for when an AD requests that the IESG remove someone's posting privileges from the IETF list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there isn't one then I'd have to ask that you refrain from making wildly unsupported claims as they are disruptive to the process. pgpzskQlgA0Fa.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Nick Staff wrote: John- Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure for when an AD requests that the IESG remove someone's posting privileges from the IETF list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there isn't one then I'd have to ask that you refrain from making wildly unsupported claims as they are disruptive to the process. Thanks, Nick Apparently you missed this in John's message (which you quoted in its entirety, with garbled formatting): RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2). ] ] As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals ] may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's ] progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the ] behavior by communication directly with the offending individual ] rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then ] the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last ] resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the ] approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer ] block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing ] list. Look on the second paragraph on Page 13. //cmh ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Staff writes: ] ] 7.2 Approval to block participant on a WG list (Bert Wijnen) ] ] This management issue was discussed. The IESG agrees that Bert ] Wijnen may block posting rights for Dean Anderson on the dnsops ] mailing list if he refuses to stay on topic as per the list rules. which raises the question, Why are we even discussing this? -- John Leslie [EMAIL PROTECTED] John- Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure for when an AD requests that the IESG remove someone's posting privileges from the IETF list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there isn't one then I'd have to ask that you refrain from making wildly unsupported claims as they are disruptive to the process. Have a look at 3934. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
C.M. - One of us has horribly missed the point of John's email (I'm not inferring it's you). Whichever one of us it is, the good news is I think we actually agree with each other =) The passage you quoted was indeed quoted by John but the way I read his post was that he was quoting it to show how this situation did not actually apply. That's why I asked him to provide relevant text from another rfc other than 3683 since if he was saying that wasn't relevant I wanted to know what was. I support my interpretation by quoting what John said immediately after the description: This looks similar, but it does not require the one-year minimum, nor does it require a LastCall. Basically CM I agree with you wholeheartedly that the passage does apply and that this situation should be governed by 3683. nick On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Nick Staff wrote: John- Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure for when an AD requests that the IESG remove someone's posting privileges from the IETF list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there isn't one then I'd have to ask that you refrain from making wildly unsupported claims as they are disruptive to the process. Thanks, Nick Apparently you missed this in John's message (which you quoted in its entirety, with garbled formatting): RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the ADs to also take measures if someone is disrupting WG progress (sect 3.2). ] ] As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals ] may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's ] progress. In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the ] behavior by communication directly with the offending individual ] rather than on the open mailing list. If the behavior persists then ] the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue. As a last ] resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the ] approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer ] block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing ] list. Look on the second paragraph on Page 13. //cmh ___ 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Nicholas Staff wrote: - Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list. -- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700 From: David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [dnsop] An attack that DNSSEC would have defended against...] Dean, To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official warning to you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting privileges if I see one more abusive mail from you. Thanks, David Kessens --- Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a clarification from David on this whole thing. David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that basically correct? If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? This to me transcends Dean and whether or not his posts are abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone else has the answer) if I can be penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG. No, but on the other hand WGs, the IESG and the IETF as a whole are fully entitled to defend themselves against denial of service attacks. If someone persistently sends off-topic mail over a long period, or mail making acccusations that are clearly outside the IETF's scope, or simply repetitions of the same point over and over, that is in effect a DoS and that is why we have RFC 3683. And to be very clear, if two parties are at odds outside the IETF, that must stay outside the IETF. Inside the IETF (i.e. on our mailing lists and at our meetings) there is no place for external disputes. WG Chairs, the Area Directors, and the IESG do have authority here. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Nicholas Staff wrote: - Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list. -- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700 From: David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [dnsop] An attack that DNSSEC would have defended against...] Dean, To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official warning to you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting privileges if I see one more abusive mail from you. Thanks, David Kessens --- Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a clarification from David on this whole thing. David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that basically correct? If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? This to me transcends Dean and whether or not his posts are abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone else has the answer) if I can be penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG. No, but on the other hand WGs, the IESG and the IETF as a whole are fully entitled to defend themselves against denial of service attacks. If someone persistently sends off-topic mail over a long period, or mail making acccusations that are clearly outside the IETF's scope, or simply repetitions of the same point over and over, that is in effect a DoS and that is why we have RFC 3683. And to be very clear, if two parties are at odds outside the IETF, that must stay outside the IETF. Inside the IETF (i.e. on our mailing lists and at our meetings) there is no place for external disputes. WG Chairs, the Area Directors, and the IESG do have authority here. Brian Brian, I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass (though I don't doubt I've become one), but it's not that I don't agree with what you're saying - heck not only is it the IESG's right but I think it's their duty to defend themselves and the IETF from such attacks. What I can't wrap my head around is the logic that connects it to Dean. Here is the data that's giving me a problem: In the last six months approximately 65%-75% of email generated by or about Dean to this list have been in response to messages that complained about the relevancy of his comments. In fact roughly 20% of all mail this list has received either by or relating to Dean has been from this thread alone. If you remove those messages from the count then over the last six months Dean averages around one email every 4-6 days. (all figures are rough at-a-glance calculations as opposed to pen and paper). Without getting into the discussion of whether an email every 5 days is a DOS I would certainly like to state for the record that without question the pettiness has taken far more thought than the productivity, and so if Dean's posts are a DOS then the posts trying to protect us from them have been an atom bomb. thanks, nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Without getting into the discussion of whether an email every 5 days is a DOS I would certainly like to state for the record that without question the pettiness has taken far more thought than the productivity, and so if Dean's posts are a DOS then the posts trying to protect us from them have been an atom bomb. That's the reason the process model delegates handling such problems to specific individuals, rather than having all of us, together, participate in the review and assessment. The public part is supposed to require only a basic, brief summary by those to whom the responsibility is delegated, to ensure accountability. Instead what has been happens is that we are constantly getting one or another list participant challenging the process and demanding full discussion of all the details. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote: No, but on the other hand WGs, the IESG and the IETF as a whole are fully entitled to defend themselves against denial of service attacks. There have been only 2 denial of service attacks: 1) When Dan Bernstein's subscription address was posted by Randy Bush on the DNSEXT WG in violation of list and IETF policy, making possible forged unsubscriptions, denying service to Dr. Bernstein on the issue of Anycast Extension. 2) Kessens' instant attack trying to suppress valid technical criticism of ISC's F Root operation, also on the issue of Anycast Extension. If someone persistently sends off-topic mail over a long period, or mail making acccusations that are clearly outside the IETF's scope, or simply repetitions of the same point over and over, that is in effect a DoS and that is why we have RFC 3683. True statements generally, but this hasn't happened, and this does not describe the current situation. My emails are plainly on-topic. Dan Bernsteins' email were plainly on-topic, and relevant to current issues discussions within the IETF. Plainly off-topic and plainly disruptive is school-yard name-calling, as has been repeatedly documented. And to be very clear, if two parties are at odds outside the IETF, that must stay outside the IETF. Inside the IETF (i.e. on our mailing lists and at our meetings) there is no place for external disputes. And of course, it is up to the IETF upper management to make sure that a WG chair employeed by one company (ISC) does not abuse his IETF position in that dispute. The IETF has clearly failed in that aspect, by allowing Rob Austein to continue using his official IETF role to defame Av8 Internet. Plainly school-yard namecalling on the IETF lists is within scope, and prohibited by both the IETF Code of Conduct and the ISOC Code of Conduct. Plainly abuse of privileges by IETF WG Chairs and Area Directors is within scope. WG Chairs, the Area Directors, and the IESG do have authority here. Indeed they have not only authority, but also legal responsibility and legal obligation to comply with the rules, but they haven't acted in the IETF interest or acted according to the well-documented IETF and ISOC rules. This conflict of interest and lack of fidelity to the IETF and ISOC rules is a scandal for the IETF, and for the ISOC. Dean Anderson Av8 Internet, Inc -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
First, remember that Bill Strahm is a working group chair who doesn't believe he has to either 1) interact with IETF participants, or 2) not defame IETF participants in his official duties. He thinks its perfectly OK for Rob Austein of ISC to use his IETF position to defame Av8 Internet: On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, bill wrote: As a working group chair - I would refuse an e-mail account that I am not allowed to spam control on my own terms. Before long these published email addresses would become spam sponges - and completely worthless (or expensive timewise to correctly filter Bill The IETF email lists and other accounts seem not to have this problem. Bill Strahm should also be removed as a WG chair for refusing to perform his duties as a WG Chair according to the IETF rules. On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nicholas Staff wrote: If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? The way I see it - the answer is, under normal circumstances NO. However, in the history of the IETF there have been several cases where people go out of their way to send unwarranted complaints to various ADs/IESG/IAB with unwarranted claims. If you were to do this more than a few times... Well, lets just say crying wolf once isn't a foul - but after a couple more times the town won't come out to see if there is a wolf in the pasture. I haven't seen very many unwarranted claims, outside of Kessens instant claim, of course. There are few precedents for that kind of abuse. However, the abuse documented by myself and others is pretty plainly abuse: Schoolyard-level name-calling, publishing unsubscription addresses and such are plainly abuse. Professional dishonesty [that is to say, denying proper credit, or crediting someone else improperly, or reporting falsely and disparagingly on the contents of a document one hasn't read] is plainly abusive. Defamation is plainly abusive. Unjustified threats to suppress valid technical criticism is a bit more sophisticated. I can't think of another case similar to that. But of course, we can figure out if my technical criticism is justified, and if it is, it completely undermines the credibility of Kessens' complaint. And in this case the answer is easy to find. Simply answer these questions: 1. Does Anycast Extension work with fine grained per packet load splitting as described by RFC1812 and as implemented and documented for example in Cisco PPLB on various Cisco routers? If the answer to the above question is No, then Dean Anderson, Dan Bernstein, and Iljitsch van Beijnum are right, and ISC is wrong. On two Working Groups, no one has claimed that the answer is Yes. The opposing arguments generally either claim that PPLB is impossible (easily refuted), or that the Anycast Extension works with course grained load balancing (which doesn't answer the question and isn't Yes). 2. Has the IETF approved the Anycast Extension? The answer is plainly No. There is no RFC and no approval. This is plainly found in IETF records. 3. Does ISC F Root operational deployment of the Anycast Extension comply with RFC2870? There is a technical standard for Root Server operation. There are technically unambiguous ways to determine compliance with RFC 2870. Since there is no IETF approval of the Anycast Extension, and since this Anycast Extension can't work in general for those users that exercise fine grained load splitting according to RFC1812, a Root DNS server with this extension cannot meet the requirements of RFC2870 Section 2.6. So, the answer to question 3 is No. Therefore, this unapproved extension should not be deployed on Root Nameservers, and ISC should not be encouraging root server operators to do so by telling people it is safe, approved, or uncontroversial. And Therefore the following are true: 1) my criticism is valid 2) Kessens' threat is plainly inappropriate 3) My complaint about Kessens threat is substantiated There is no case where Kessens complaint in retaliation to my administrative complaint of his threat is justified. This is because even if I and the others were wrong in our criticism, I am still allowed to complain about the threat. There is no case where Kessens is allowed to retaliate for my complaint. Second, my criticism of ISC F Root operation is well-justified, footnoted, and technical. And it also has the characteristic of being correct and substantiated. But the point of posting any technical criticism is to discuss the issues. A well-justified, footnoted criticism could possibly turn out to be wrong. But even if some such criticism was subsequently found wrong, it is still inappropriate to threaten a well-formed criticism. Thats just part of discussion. Kessens' involvement in this discussion is because he doesn't want ANY criticism of a particular group. A group that is
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Crocker writes: Without getting into the discussion of whether an email every 5 days is a DOS I would certainly like to state for the record that without question the pettiness has taken far more thought than the productivity, and so if Dean's posts are a DOS then the posts trying to protect us from them have been an atom bomb. That's the reason the process model delegates handling such problems to specific individuals, rather than having all of us, together, participate in the review and assessment. Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a Last Call. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Crocker writes: Without getting into the discussion of whether an email every 5 days is a DOS I would certainly like to state for the record that without question the pettiness has taken far more thought than the productivity, and so if Dean's posts are a DOS then the posts trying to protect us from them have been an atom bomb. That's the reason the process model delegates handling such problems to specific individuals, rather than having all of us, together, participate in the review and assessment. Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a Last Call. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb Thank you Steven - I was really beginning to think no one on this list cared as much about the truth as they did winning and it was really nice to find I was wrong. Dave, Noel - I know what you guys are saying and believe me, I really really would rather not be playing the role I'm playing. Truthfully though, I thought both of your comments were mean spirited and geared at making me feel bad rather than at trying to help fix the problem but I'm not going to respond to them any more than that because I'm not sure if those are things you really believe or if you were just saying them because you wanted to take a cheap shot to feel like you'd been better than someone. If you really feel your comments are worth discussing drop me a line off-list and I'll be happy to respond and explain why I think your position is unfair and why I think you're two of the bullies of this list and part of the root problem this thread is an example of (which is funny because I like both of you, but it's like that old line they're really nice when it's just us but when they get around their friends they just start acting different...). To everyone else (as well as Noel and Dave) I'm sorry for making such a big deal about this but the thing is our first cardinal principal is that anyone can make their voice heard on an issue, so to call someone's voice off-topic is to say their opinion is so egregiously irrelevant that it warrants the compromise of the first of only five principles this organization is founded on. There is much weight in that but unfortunately it has been so overused here as a debate tactic that I doubt people are even aware of what they're trivializing. I read the DNSOPS Charter and I read Dean Anderson's post. Does it seem to fixate a little unnaturally on the ISC? To me it does. Does Dean seem like a bit of a zealot? To me he does. Is his message about DNS and a possible operational hazard? It certainly read that way to me. Thanks for listening, Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list. -- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700 From: David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [dnsop] An attack that DNSSEC would have defended against...] Dean, To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official warning to you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting privileges if I see one more abusive mail from you. Thanks, David Kessens --- Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a clarification from David on this whole thing. David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that basically correct? If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? This to me transcends Dean and whether or not his posts are abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone else has the answer) if I can be penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG. Thanks, Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf The way I see it - the answer is, under normal circumstances NO. However, in the history of the IETF there have been several cases where people go out of their way to send unwarranted complaints to various ADs/IESG/IAB with unwarranted claims. If you were to do this more than a few times... Well, lets just say crying wolf once isn't a foul - but after a couple more times the town won't come out to see if there is a wolf in the pasture. Bill ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list. -- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700 From: David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [dnsop] An attack that DNSSEC would have defended against...] Dean, To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official warning to you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting privileges if I see one more abusive mail from you. Thanks, David Kessens --- Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a clarification from David on this whole thing. David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that basically correct? If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? This to me transcends Dean and whether or not his posts are abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone else has the answer) if I can be penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG. Thanks, Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf The way I see it - the answer is, under normal circumstances NO. However, in the history of the IETF there have been several cases where people go out of their way to send unwarranted complaints to various ADs/IESG/IAB with unwarranted claims. If you were to do this more than a few times... Well, lets just say crying wolf once isn't a foul - but after a couple more times the town won't come out to see if there is a wolf in the pasture. Does that mean that if an AD's proposal to remove someone's posting privileges fails to garner the required support that it was the AD who cried wolf? And if not how come? nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Nicholas, On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 05:46:33PM -0700, Nicholas Staff wrote: David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. I first sent a message on the dnsop mail list that most people would interpret as a clear warning to behave better or face the consequences. However, considering earlier misunderstandings, I sent him a private message to make sure he fully understood what I was telling him. Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion. He did two things: He sent another inflammatory message to the dnsop mail list in which he again attacked a well-known organization while he was just told to refrain from such attacks. In addition, he forwarded my private message to the IETF mail list. However, he not just forwarded my private messsage, he added simular accusations as the ones in his earlier messages to the dnsop mail list. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that basically correct? No, it was not his complaint as he did not sent a complaint. It was the fact that he used his messages to repeat the same accusations that he was warned not to repeat. If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? I did not send my request to the IESG just because he voiced his opinion or filed a complaint. I sent my request, because, among others, his comments were out of scope for the dnsop working group, he voiced his opinion in a totally unprofessional manner and repeated this behavior on two different mail lists right after he was warned. I hope this helps to clarify the events. David Kessens --- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
I hope that we can discuss this as soon as possible. Until then, I will try to refrain from sending any more messages on this topic as I don't believe that this will be productive. People on this mail list might want to consider to do the same thing. Thanks, David Kessens Operations Management Area Director I agree this is not the forum for this discussion, but since you publicized your attack I think he's entitled to at least one public dissent. I'd be happy to agree with you by the way if you could show me anything that amounted to the abuse you claim (abuse from Dean that is). Anyway, barring that I'll list the 1,000 reasons why I think you're wrong in my email to the IESG. Thanks, Nick Staff ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicholas Staff writes: I hope that we can discuss this as soon as possible. Until then, I will try to refrain from sending any more messages on this topic as I don't believe that this will be productive. People on this mail list might want to consider to do the same thing. Thanks, David Kessens Operations Management Area Director I agree this is not the forum for this discussion, but since you publicized your attack I think he's entitled to at least one public dissent. I'd be happy to agree with you by the way if you could show me anything that amounted to the abuse you claim (abuse from Dean that is). Anyway, barring that I'll list the 1,000 reasons why I think you're wrong in my email to the IESG. I'm sorry, David's note wasn't an attack -- it was David excercising his responsibility as an AD. Have a look at Section 2 of RFC 3683 -- to revoke someone's posting rights, he *must* make a public statement on the IETF mailing list. --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] - FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list. -- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700 From: David Kessens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: David Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rob Austein [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bert Wijnen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [dnsop] An attack that DNSSEC would have defended against...] Dean, To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official warning to you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting privileges if I see one more abusive mail from you. Thanks, David Kessens --- Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a clarification from David on this whole thing. David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts. Dean in turn informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was unwarranted and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had a differing technical opinion. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an instance of another abusive post and requested to have his privileges removed. Is that basically correct? If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a reason for retribution? This to me transcends Dean and whether or not his posts are abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone else has the answer) if I can be penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG. Thanks, Nick ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: I'm sorry, David's note wasn't an attack -- it was David excercising his responsibility as an AD. Have a look at Section 2 of RFC 3683 -- to revoke someone's posting rights, he *must* make a public statement on the IETF mailing list. Kessens offlist email was a threat. Kessens only made the complaint in revenge for my administrative complaint about his threat. Kessens complaint, being unjustified revenge, is an attack. But lets not forget, Mr. Bellovin, just last week you reported in your offical capacity as Chair of the IPR WG on the contents of a message of mine involving patent policy. You reported that my message was wrong, and at the end noted you hadn't even read my message. Mr. Bellovin: you are a research scientist at a respected institution, and you know very well that if you haven't read a document, you can't honestly comment on its contents. I am still waiting for your honest acknowledgment that my message was not wrong, and for you to acknowledge honestly as Chair of the IPR Working Group that the IETF policy is to prefer non-encumbered technology as documented in RFC3979 Section 8. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
