[Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Simon Lyall]

A policy idea that has been put forward, thoughts (especially from 
lurkers) ?

Simon
NANOG MLC

Policy re individual sites
==

The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites 
and email services is off-topic unless:

(a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
 at the site hosting the service.
(b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
 directly supports network routing and connectivity.



-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
mail products.

Delete key?





On 4/30/09, Simon Lyall  wrote:
>
> A policy idea that has been put forward, thoughts (especially from
> lurkers) ?
>
> Simon
> NANOG MLC
>
> Policy re individual sites
> ==
>
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites
> and email services is off-topic unless:
>
> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
>  at the site hosting the service.
> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
>  directly supports network routing and connectivity.
>
>
>
> --
> Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
> "To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Simon Lyall]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
> whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
> finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
> mail products.

I would expect these to be covered on the outages list and site:

http://www.outages.org


-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joel Jaeggli]

Simon Lyall wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>> Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
>> whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
>> finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
>> mail products.
> 
> I would expect these to be covered on the outages list and site:
> 
> http://www.outages.org

So, looking at some past topics

google youtube hijack, seems fairly clearly on topic

nth amazon e2c meltdown maybe, maybe not, depends why.

gadi discovering that mostly unused transport layer protocols can be
DOSed totally irrelevant,

dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to all
queries, on topic.

resulting thread about the evils of dnsbls, off topic

trolls responding the japanese spam, off topic

trolls responding with haikus, off topic

isp tech support offshoring, mostly off topic

twitter for out of band messaging, stupid but theoretically relevant

bay area multifiber cut, relevant

resulting thread about securing manhole covers, totally irrelevant.

> 

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jim Popovitch]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 18:45, Simon Lyall  wrote:
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites
> and email services is off-topic unless:
>
> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
>     at the site hosting the service.
> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
>     directly supports network routing and connectivity.

It's really just easier to say that NANOG is only for old-timers, BGP,
and long boring discussions of interest only to IETF policy makers and
IETF wanna-bes.

IMHO, Engineering belongs on IETF lists, Operational issues on NANOG,
and everything else should expire within 24 hours.   "Is it down for
just me" *can* be Operational, depending on the poster.

-Jim P.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:24 PM, Simon Lyall  wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> > Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
> > whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
> > finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
> > mail products.
>
> I would expect these to be covered on the outages list and site:
>
> http://www.outages.org



There are lists for a ton of other nanog topics as well. And?


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Gadi Evron]

Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> 
> Simon Lyall wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>> Not such a great idea. A down search engine is an operational problem
>>> whether its application or network. It makes lots of phones ring and
>>> finger pointing at our networks. This costs us money.  Same for major
>>> mail products.
>> I would expect these to be covered on the outages list and site:
>>
>> http://www.outages.org
> 
> So, looking at some past topics
> 
> google youtube hijack, seems fairly clearly on topic
> 
> nth amazon e2c meltdown maybe, maybe not, depends why.
> 
> gadi discovering that mostly unused transport layer protocols can be
> DOSed totally irrelevant,

Which site was that? I want to see if it is accessible now.

Thank you for your assistance,

Gadi.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

> A policy idea that has been put forward, thoughts (especially from 
> lurkers) ?
> 
> Simon
> NANOG MLC
> 
> Policy re individual sites
> ==
> 
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites 
> and email services is off-topic unless:
> 
> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
>  at the site hosting the service.
> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
>  directly supports network routing and connectivity.

fix your desk calendar.  this is may 1st, not april 1st.

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Michael Dillon]

> Policy re individual sites
> ==
>
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites
> and email services is off-topic unless:
>
> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than problems
>     at the site hosting the service.
> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
>     directly supports network routing and connectivity.

Why so short?

You really need to write up several more pages of detailed regulations
so that we can get everyone to memorise it and set up an online
NANOG on-topic quiz that people have to pass every 6 months to
maintain posting privileges.

Or, maybe you could just stop worrying about POLICING and pipe up
more often with actual useful info that would help the people who
start/join these discussions. Stuff like the URL to outages.org, for instance.

You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

--Michael Dillon

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> "Is it down for just me" *can* be Operational, depending on the  
> poster.


This is going to sound harsh, but it seems true to me.

"If you don't know how to determine if a problem only affects a single  
site, you aren't competent to be part of Nanog community and should  
unsubscribe."

I mean seriously, pick up your cell phone and try reaching it from  
there.  How many network operations don't have network enabled cell  
phones these days?  And likewise, if you don't have more than a single  
provider, is Nanog an appropriate place for you?

So yeah, it sounds harsh.  But let's be honest -- it's true.  Every  
single idiot that posts "the internet is down!" is usually working  
from their home DSL and can't find their way out of a wet paper bag.


-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:54 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> There are lists for a ton of other nanog topics as well. And?


People should subscribe to them.  Nanog's function as a "list for all  
things" makes it entirely useless.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On Apr 30, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> Policy re individual sites
> ==
>
> The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as  
> websites
> and email services is off-topic unless:

Yes.

> (b) The Internet site is a route-server or similar service which
> directly supports network routing and connectivity.

Yes.

> (a) The problems are caused by network reachability rather than  
> problems
> at the site hosting the service.

(a) The problems are related to a widespread outage which affects more  
than one site.

Which actually kind of rules it out, since that conflicts with the  
original statement above.  So drop (a) and keep (b).  A minor  
rewording of that would be:

"The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as  
websites and email services is off-topic unless the site provides a  
route-server or similar service which directly supports network  
routing and connectivity."

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Gadi Evron]

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to  
>> all
>> queries, on topic.
> 
> 
> On topic for who?   Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl.
> 
> It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam  
> prevention, or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to  
> routing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations rather 
than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest?


-- 
Gadi Evron,
g...@linuxbox.org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
Security blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Gadi Evron]

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> "Is it down for just me" *can* be Operational, depending on the  
>> poster.
> 
> 
> This is going to sound harsh, but it seems true to me.
> 
> "If you don't know how to determine if a problem only affects a single  
> site, you aren't competent to be part of Nanog community and should  
> unsubscribe."
> 
> I mean seriously, pick up your cell phone and try reaching it from  
> there.  How many network operations don't have network enabled cell  
> phones these days?  And likewise, if you don't have more than a single  
> provider, is Nanog an appropriate place for you?
> 
> So yeah, it sounds harsh.  But let's be honest -- it's true.  Every  
> single idiot that posts "the internet is down!" is usually working  
> from their home DSL and can't find their way out of a wet paper bag.

While I sympathize and tend to agree, I'd like to raise a point for 
consideration.

Many operators are idle on NANOG in order to learn. NANOG in fact is one 
of the educational facilities for beginner network operators. It should 
be expected if indeed NANOG is to fill this role, that occasionally a 
"silly" question will be asked.


-- 
Gadi Evron,
g...@linuxbox.org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
Security blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to  
> all
> queries, on topic.


On topic for who?   Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl.

It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam  
prevention, or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to  
routing.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joel Jaeggli]

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> dnsbl shuts down and starts responding with affirmative responses to all
>> queries, on topic.
> 
> 
> On topic for who?   Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl.
> 
> It's on topic for a mailing list about e-mail servers, spam prevention,
> or a whole host of other topics -- none of which relate to routing.

It caused a widespread outage in a distributed internet service in
somewhat unanticapated fashion. DNSBL's and similar resource mapping
facilities are not solely a spam tool (consider the other applications
for the ip to asn for example), how they break should be of interest to
us for much the same reason that cache poisoning is.

as I noted much of the ensuing dicussion was far off topic.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[James R. Cutler]

On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations  
> rather
> than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest?
> -- 
> Gadi Evron,
> g...@linuxbox.org.


Thanks, Gadi.

Some on this list appear to believe that the NANOG list is only for  
router operations and only for large networks. Cisco and Jupiter user  
forums are places for this. Together, these suggest that the NANOG  
list should disappear.  THIS IS INCORRECT! ("Strongly worded message  
to follow.")

"The North American Network Operators' Group! NANOG is an educational  
and operational forum for the coordination and dissemination of  
technical information related to backbone/enterprise networking  
technologies and operational practices."

In my almost two decades involved in enterprise networking: Naming and  
Addressing Management, DNS Service, DHCP Service, Mail Routing both  
via MX, using directory services, and through firewall systems, and,  
mail delivery systems (post offices) were all network operations  
concerns, especially as the network evolved to meet changing  
technology and especially changing company and client needs.

I do agree that some are lazy and prone to use the NANOG list as first  
resort in troubleshooting. As noted in other messages, a simple "This  
information is available at ." would be useful, but not repeated  
"This is off topic.", which to some extent itself is off topic for the  
NANOG list. Let the MLC send gentle reminders to keep us on track.  
That is a major part of the MLC responsibility. Is not mine or Bob's  
or Ted's or Alice's.

James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

And

Loudness != majority

I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
rules to assault the few, IMHO.


On 5/1/09, James R. Cutler  wrote:
> On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't NANOG about network operations
>> rather
>> than routing? With routing naturally being the main point of interest?
>> --
>> Gadi Evron,
>> g...@linuxbox.org.
>
>
> Thanks, Gadi.
>
> Some on this list appear to believe that the NANOG list is only for
> router operations and only for large networks. Cisco and Jupiter user
> forums are places for this. Together, these suggest that the NANOG
> list should disappear.  THIS IS INCORRECT! ("Strongly worded message
> to follow.")
>
> "The North American Network Operators' Group! NANOG is an educational
> and operational forum for the coordination and dissemination of
> technical information related to backbone/enterprise networking
> technologies and operational practices."
>
> In my almost two decades involved in enterprise networking: Naming and
> Addressing Management, DNS Service, DHCP Service, Mail Routing both
> via MX, using directory services, and through firewall systems, and,
> mail delivery systems (post offices) were all network operations
> concerns, especially as the network evolved to meet changing
> technology and especially changing company and client needs.
>
> I do agree that some are lazy and prone to use the NANOG list as first
> resort in troubleshooting. As noted in other messages, a simple "This
> information is available at ." would be useful, but not repeated
> "This is off topic.", which to some extent itself is off topic for the
> NANOG list. Let the MLC send gentle reminders to keep us on track.
> That is a major part of the MLC responsibility. Is not mine or Bob's
> or Ted's or Alice's.
>
> James R. Cutler
> james.cut...@consultant.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Steve Feldman]

On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> Loudness != majority

...which should be the NANOG motto!

and:

> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
> related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
> rules to assault the few, IMHO.

...which seems to be what most of the preceding comments have boiled  
down to, in one way or another.

Would anyone care to make a case for the opposite?

Steve (SC member and MLC liaison)


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Steve Feldman]

My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that  
enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an  
infinite rathole.

I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe:

   - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion  
should be redirected there.

I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question,  
especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to  
answers.  (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html  
for an example.)  And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke  
or otherwise off-topic comment.  (We already have a working process to  
deal with chronic abusers.)

What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic  
threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.

Steve


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Gadi Evron]

Steve Feldman wrote:
> My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that  
> enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an  
> infinite rathole.
> 
> I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe:
> 
>- If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion  
> should be redirected there.
> 
> I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question,  
> especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to  
> answers.  (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html  
> for an example.)  And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke  
> or otherwise off-topic comment.  (We already have a working process to  
> deal with chronic abusers.)
> 
> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic  
> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.
> 
>   Steve

I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he 
said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so 
far.

Anyone else seconding this?

Gadi.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

> On topic for who?   Show me how to configure my router to use a dnsbl.

please be seated when you read the next sentence.



network operations is not only about routers

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Paul Ferguson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Gadi Evron  wrote:

> Steve Feldman wrote:

>>
>> I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question,
>> especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to
>> answers.  (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html
>> for an example.)  And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke
>> or otherwise off-topic comment.  (We already have a working process to
>> deal with chronic abusers.)
>>
>> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic
>> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.
>>
>>   Steve
>
> I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he
> said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so
> far.
>
> Anyone else seconding this?
>

I agree with Steve, too. :-)

- - ferg

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)

wj8DBQFJ+3Tuq1pz9mNUZTMRAoTEAJ9pOZNtkKxeFt8s2YFYB2JgjAjtOwCgzbeB
jg1ISfrEvQBF5+rj80ln8Yo=
=Ipsj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

> - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion  
> should be redirected there.

nope.  i do not want to have to manage subscriptions (and get monthly
mailman garbage:) from 42 mailing lists, and have to track where subject
19.43 has moved this week.

do people not have mail readers with a delete subject/thread key?

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[kris foster]

On May 1, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:

> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic
> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.


This causes a fair bit of pain (from what a number of people have told  
me, and my own opinion). I'd be happy to hear ideas from _everyone_ on  
what the solution might be.

The two problems are:

1. At what point does it become a degenerate thread

2. Does the MLC then moderate the thread, plead with all subscribers  
to stop, or play whac-a-mole with individual posters (..or worse, just  
complain that people don't know how to filter email for themselves).

For the MLC, we believe the answer to #2 is thread moderation, but we  
don't have an answer to #1. At this point it looks like we moderate  
after a subjectively sufficient number of posts show no sign of  
recovery, let everyone know it's been moderated, and let through any  
follow up emails that look like they might pull things back on track.

Kris
MLC Chair

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Scott Weeks]

--- kris.fos...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Does the MLC then moderate the thread, plead with all subscribers  
to stop, or play whac-a-mole with individual posters (..or worse, just  
complain that people don't know how to filter email for themselves).

 At this point it looks like we moderate  
after a subjectively sufficient number of posts show no sign of  
recovery, let everyone know it's been moderated, and let through any  
follow up emails that look like they might pull things back on track.
-



First tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time.  
Most will stop after getting their last word in.

Tell everyone the thread will be moderated.

Whack the folks that just can't stop with a clue bat.  OK, moderate it...  >;-)

"let through any follow up emails that look like they might pull things back on 
track."
yes.

scott










































--
--
---

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Simon Lyall]

On Fri, 1 May 2009, Scott Weeks wrote:
> First tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time.
> Most will stop after getting their last word in.

1 post plus another 10

> Tell everyone the thread will be moderated.

Another post

> Whack the folks that just can't stop with a clue bat.  OK, moderate it...  
> >;-)

Another couple

> "let through any follow up emails that look like they might pull things 
> back on track."
> yes.

Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ).

One problem I see is that gives a "free Pass" to people who want to start 
threads ( or drift existing threads) onto off-topic areas.

The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to yahoo 
or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some random little 
website having malware on it will get in a couple of posts before the MLC 
even notices it (depending on what time it starts), exactly how many more 
posts do we want before it's stopped?

Seriously, the easiest way to clean up the list would probably be to keep 
sending warnings to the top dozen problem posters until they are all 
banned from the list. In reality the MLC hasn't even sent an official 
reminder to anybody since January.

Personally I'd like to be able to recommend NANOG to my manager as a 
useful resource without having to say "you have to wade through a lot of 
junk and off-topic posts". Most people really don't have the time to do 
that.

-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Simon Lyall]

On Fri, 1 May 2009, Jo Rhett wrote:
> "The availability and operation of specific Internet site such as websites 
> and email services is off-topic unless the site provides a route-server or 
> similar service which directly supports network routing and connectivity."

That sounds tidier, thankyou,

-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Scott Weeks]

--
Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ).

The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to yahoo 
or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some random little 
website having malware on it will get in a couple of posts before the MLC 
even notices it (depending on what time it starts), exactly how many more 
posts do we want before it's stopped?
--

That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a case by 
case basis.

scott

















































-
-


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

Third-Fourthed.



On 5/1/09, Paul Ferguson  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Gadi Evron  wrote:
>
>> Steve Feldman wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I honestly don't mind seeing the occasional newbie question,
>>> especially if there are polite and intelligent responses pointing to
>>> answers.  (See http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg17639.html
>>> for an example.)  And my delete key can deal with the occasional joke
>>> or otherwise off-topic comment.  (We already have a working process to
>>> deal with chronic abusers.)
>>>
>>> What bugs me is when these degenerate into long-lived off-topic
>>> threads, and that's where I'd like to see the MLC's effort focused.
>>>
>>>   Steve
>>
>> I think Steve's comments speak well for me as well. I second what he
>> said and believe it is representative of consensus from what we heard so
>> far.
>>
>> Anyone else seconding this?
>>
>
> I agree with Steve, too. :-)
>
> - - ferg
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003)
>
> wj8DBQFJ+3Tuq1pz9mNUZTMRAoTEAJ9pOZNtkKxeFt8s2YFYB2JgjAjtOwCgzbeB
> jg1ISfrEvQBF5+rj80ln8Yo=
> =Ipsj
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>
>
> --
> "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
>  Engineering Architecture for the Internet
>  fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
>  ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[kris foster]

On May 1, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

>
> --
> Some more on topic ( before it drifts again ).
>
> The regular thread from people complaining about sending email to  
> yahoo
> or the latest virus or some weird Japanese emails, or some random  
> little
> website having malware on it will get in a couple of posts before  
> the MLC
> even notices it (depending on what time it starts), exactly how many  
> more
> posts do we want before it's stopped?
> --
>
> That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a  
> case by case basis.

The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first  
reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for  
community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the  
MLC operates under.

Kris
MLC Chair

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Scott Weeks]

> --
> exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped?
> --

> That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a  
> case by case basis.
--

The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first  
reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for  
community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the  
MLC operates under.
---


Ok, I see that was an obvious DOH! on my part.  I guess it'll have to be 
up to you folks.  I believe if we do the below, though, a significant portion 
of OTN will stop.

- First, tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time.
- Tell everyone the thread will be moderated and give it a little time.
- Do it.

Fundamentally, though, as others have mentioned the delete key is fine.

The above is only my suggestion for the *painfully* long OT threads. Some
of those friggin` threads seem to be 100s of posts long over several days.

scott








































---

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

There are many 'websites' or apps relevant to netops.
-keystone
-rupe ncc monitoring
-potaroo
-large portals (mail, communities, etc)
-search engines

If "I"  had posted about equifax.com being down this would not be a
topic. If Rod Beck did it, he'd get banned. You can't moderate style
or personality tweaks for us. That's what killfiles are for. .

Two posts about websites? Guys. For real?

Can't we all...just...hit delete?



On 5/1/09, Scott Weeks  wrote:
>
>
>> --
>> exactly how many more posts do we want before it's stopped?
>> --
>
>> That's the subjective part, which we can discuss here on, perhaps, a
>> case by case basis.
> --
>
> The MLC will not be able to function effectively if it must first
> reach consensus with nanog-futures for each case. We are looking for
> community input into, and ongoing refinement of, the policies that the
> MLC operates under.
> ---
>
>
> Ok, I see that was an obvious DOH! on my part.  I guess it'll have to be
> up to you folks.  I believe if we do the below, though, a significant
> portion
> of OTN will stop.
>
> - First, tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time.
> - Tell everyone the thread will be moderated and give it a little time.
> - Do it.
>
> Fundamentally, though, as others have mentioned the delete key is fine.
>
> The above is only my suggestion for the *painfully* long OT threads. Some
> of those friggin` threads seem to be 100s of posts long over several days.
>
> scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> ---
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joe Abley]

On 1-May-2009, at 17:03, Steve Feldman wrote:

> My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that
> enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an
> infinite rathole.
>
> I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe:
>
>   - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion
> should be redirected there.

I don't think even that is universally helpful. It's not hard to find  
examples of outages which spawn operationally-helpful and surely on- 
topic replies on NANOG which would likely not happen on the outages  
list (for example).

I think trying to define what is off-topic is a waste of time.

I'd prefer the MLC to treat each case on its merits, and to work with  
a light touch to keep the list useful. Do the MLC volunteers feel that  
this isn't working?

It's not clear to me exactly what problem this proposed solution is  
aimed at.


Joe

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[John Osmon]

On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 08:17:10PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
[...] 
> I'd prefer the MLC to treat each case on its merits, and to work with  
> a light touch to keep the list useful. Do the MLC volunteers feel that  
> this isn't working?
> 
> It's not clear to me exactly what problem this proposed solution is  
> aimed at.

In legal situations, we often find silly situationas where the letter
of the law is followed, while ignoring the original intent.  Trying to
define what is "on topic" pulls you into such a cycle with the siren
song of making the list "better."

I'd rather keep a trusted group (the MLC), that trys to keep things
tied to the intent.  If they drift too far, they can be replaced.



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Gadi Evron]

Joe Abley wrote:
> On 1-May-2009, at 17:03, Steve Feldman wrote:
> 
>> My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that
>> enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an
>> infinite rathole.
>>
>> I'd rather see more generic guidelines, like maybe:
>>
>>   - If there's a well-known mailing list for the subject, discussion
>> should be redirected there.
> 
> I don't think even that is universally helpful. It's not hard to find  
> examples of outages which spawn operationally-helpful and surely on- 
> topic replies on NANOG which would likely not happen on the outages  
> list (for example).
> 
> I think trying to define what is off-topic is a waste of time.
> 
> I'd prefer the MLC to treat each case on its merits, and to work with  
> a light touch to keep the list useful. Do the MLC volunteers feel that  
> this isn't working?
> 
> It's not clear to me exactly what problem this proposed solution is  
> aimed at.

Joe, you're a reasonable fellow. Would you agree that except for this 
point on re-directing people, what Steve said is representative of what 
we heard so far?

If it is not, what do you think is?

Gadi.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joe Abley]

On 3-May-2009, at 02:17, Joe Abley wrote:

> On 1-May-2009, at 17:03, Steve Feldman wrote:
>
>> My personal opinion (not wearing SC hat for the moment) is that
>> enumeration of specific subjects which are on and off topic is an
>> infinite rathole.

Since someone asked, this (above) is something I definitely agree  
with :-)


Joe


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 11:37:38PM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> If "I"  had posted about equifax.com being down this would not be a
> topic. If Rod Beck did it, he'd get banned. You can't moderate style
> or personality tweaks for us. That's what killfiles are for. .
> 
> Two posts about websites? Guys. For real?
> 
> Can't we all...just...hit delete?

Or can't we all just learn to use the software tools at our disposal?

I use: procmail, mutt and grepmail.

Procmail (in concert with RFC 2369 headers) makes it very easy for
me to keep nanog traffic separate from outages traffic separate from
mailop traffic etc.  It also makes it easy pluck out traffic (going
by on any list) that pertains to domains/ASNs/etc. that are likely to
be of considerable interest to me, and to toss copies of those messages
someplace where they'll get my attention.

Mutt has a humble interface but is very powerful -- and since it runs
in a terminal window, plays nice with ssh.  It's highly resistant to
attacks, has great threading/sorting/searching features, and lets me
edit headers as easily as messages.

Grepmail isn't as well known as either, but deserves a look: it allows
one to search saved mail (compressed or not) and extract messages meeting
certain criteria.   (For instance, I could pull out everything from Martin
on nanog, or everything from dns-operations mentioning BIND views.)
Grepmail extracts them as entire messages, i.e., its output is a
standard Unix mbox file.

None of these are perfect, of course, and I'm sure there are other tools
which deserve mention.  But judicious use of these renders at least some
of the concerns expressed here (mostly) moot.

---Rsk

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Loudness != majority
>
> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
> related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
> rules to assault the few, IMHO.


While I agree with your points in theory, Martin, I would ask that you  
do an actual analysis of useful content on NANOG.  I did one some  
months ago based on a week's backlog of Nanog in my mail folder, and  
found (quoted from an e-mail I sent to someone at the time)

> 17 on-topic posts
> 133 not useful but not completely off-topic posts
> 22 direct personal insult messages (not about whether it was off- 
> topic)
> 42 complaints about off-topic (7 were personal insults)
> 357 posts that were better directed at a list specific to the topic  
> (ie namedroppers)
> 57 posts that were someone asking for help who should have used a  
> phone book/faq/etc
> 212 replies of positive encouragement for using nanog as a telephone  
> resolution service

So yes, Martin, in theory I agree with you.  But in practice Nanog had  
twice as many AUP-violating direct personal insults as content  
specific to NANOG, and both of those were the hard minority of posts.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Jo Rhett  wrote:

> On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> Loudness != majority
>>
>> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
>> related to network operations. Most know what that is. No need to make
>> rules to assault the few, IMHO.
>>
>
>
> While I agree with your points in theory, Martin, I would ask that you do
> an actual analysis of useful content on NANOG.  I did one some months ago
> based on a week's backlog of Nanog in my mail folder, and found (quoted from
> an e-mail I sent to someone at the time)


Jo,

My analysis would come out dramatically different than yours. That's would
be the point.

Best Regards,

Martin


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

clearly we have returned to a regime where folk think that censorship is
the way to improve what they see as the appropriate content of the nanog
list.  

as part of that, the mlc is now saying "there is a list for that,
."  if someone would do us a favor and accumulate a list of these
lists, one could subscribe to them, unsubscribe from nanog, and dump the
new lists into the same inbox.  

i, for one, am ready.  i have a delete key for messages that do not
interest me.  but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors
do not think i should read.

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jared Mauch]

On May 12, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote:

> clearly we have returned to a regime where folk think that  
> censorship is
> the way to improve what they see as the appropriate content of the  
> nanog
> list.
>
> as part of that, the mlc is now saying "there is a list for that,
> ."  if someone would do us a favor and accumulate a list of these
> lists, one could subscribe to them, unsubscribe from nanog, and dump  
> the
> new lists into the same inbox.
>
> i, for one, am ready.  i have a delete key for messages that do not
> interest me.  but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors
> do not think i should read.

I am concerned about the recent trend of thread moderation.  I can  
assure you this has the attention of the SC.

- Jared

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

This problem has  become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash
of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in
some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
not so job for Kris et al.

How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?

Best

Martin



On 5/12/09, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 2:22 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> clearly we have returned to a regime where folk think that
>> censorship is
>> the way to improve what they see as the appropriate content of the
>> nanog
>> list.
>>
>> as part of that, the mlc is now saying "there is a list for that,
>> ."  if someone would do us a favor and accumulate a list of these
>> lists, one could subscribe to them, unsubscribe from nanog, and dump
>> the
>> new lists into the same inbox.
>>
>> i, for one, am ready.  i have a delete key for messages that do not
>> interest me.  but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors
>> do not think i should read.
>
> I am concerned about the recent trend of thread moderation.  I can
> assure you this has the attention of the SC.
>
>   - Jared
>


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jay Moran]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan
 wrote:
>
> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?

This sounds fine to me. Those who don't mind using the d key and/or
our own kill files will stay on na...@nanog.org; those who like having
someone else decide what they read can move to
nanog-filte...@nanog.org.

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

>> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
> This sounds fine to me. Those who don't mind using the d key and/or
> our own kill files will stay on na...@nanog.org; those who like having
> someone else decide what they read can move to
> nanog-filte...@nanog.org.

wfm

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jared Mauch]

On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

> This problem has  become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash
> of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in

I certainly agree on the cyclical problem.  This issue keeps coming  
back.  Personally, I'm not entirely certain that it will go away.

> some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
> workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
> The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
> not so job for Kris et al.
>
> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?

This is an interesting idea.  The next SC meeting is in another  
week.  As mentioned before, I'm certain this topic will be discussed.   
Coming up on ~4 years total on the SC, it's been a recurring issue.   
I'm certain it will not be solved overnight.

- Jared

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

> This problem has  become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash
> of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in
> some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
> workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
> The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
> not so job for Kris et al.
^ (happy|good|pleasant|achievable|.*)

i agree.  we set them up for abuse and a choice between failure modes.
they can not win.

> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?

works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive" beyond my
using the delete functions.

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[kris foster]

On May 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:

>
> On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
>> workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
>> The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
>> not so job for Kris et al.
>>
>> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
>
>   This is an interesting idea.

Glad I get blank stares every time I suggest this.

Kris

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > This problem has  become a cyclical event which seems to cause a rash
> > of finger pointing at the MLC whenever it pops up. This results in
> > some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
> > workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
> > The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
> > not so job for Kris et al.
> ^ (happy|good|pleasant|achievable|.*)
>
> i agree.  we set them up for abuse and a choice between failure modes.
> they can not win.
>
> > How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
>
> works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive" beyond my
> using the delete functions.
>
> randy
>


Dean.


-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

>> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
> works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive" beyond my
> using the delete functions.
> Dean.

what's a dean?

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joe Provo]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 08:25:10AM -0700, kris foster wrote:
> 
> On May 12, 2009, at 7:32 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> >
> > On May 12, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> >
> >> some 'action'. That action is usually like using reload as a
> >> workaround to a hardware problem instead of replacing the buggy code.
> >> The result is what we keep discussing: same stuff different day and a
> >> not so job for Kris et al.
> >>
> >> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
> >
> > This is an interesting idea.
> 
> Glad I get blank stares every time I suggest this.
 
Those of us who have advocated multiple lists tend to get met with "no 
one will move/use/join, it will still get polluted, etc" gripes.  Since 
bits and disk are relatively cheap, I'm definitely a fan of a trial 
balloon; heck, just go for usenet tradition and call it "nanog-moderated" 
even if it is simply agressive filters and not human moderation.

Cheers!

Joe

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[bmanning]

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 06:13:26PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
> > works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive" beyond my
> > using the delete functions.
> > Dean.
> 
> what's a dean?
> 
> randy
> 

Usually a title.

Fm Wiki..

The title may refer to:

* Dean (religion), persons in certain positions of authority within a 
religious hierarchy.
* Dean (education), the head of a division, faculty, college, or school in 
a university.
* The head of the Faculty of Advocates in Scottish law.


The title is also given less formally to the longest-serving member of certain 
groups, as:

* Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the most senior ambassador in a country's 
diplomatic corps.
* Dean of the House, the most senior member of a country's legislature.



--bill

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jay Hennigan]

bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 06:13:26PM +0200, Randy Bush wrote:
 How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
>>> works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive" beyond my
>>> using the delete functions.
>>> Dean.
>> what's a dean?
>>
>> randy
>>
> 
>   Usually a title.
> 
>   Fm Wiki..
> 
>   The title may refer to:
> 
> * Dean (religion), persons in certain positions of authority within a 
> religious hierarchy.
> * Dean (education), the head of a division, faculty, college, or school 
> in a university.
> * The head of the Faculty of Advocates in Scottish law.

What's randy?  (ducks and runs...)

Yes, I know that a jay is a blue bird.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Scott Weeks]

--- ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
> i, for one, am ready.  i have a delete key for messages that do not
> interest me.  but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors
> do not think i should read.

I am concerned about the recent trend of thread moderation.  I can  
assure you this has the attention of the SC.
--


I would certainly like to take back what I said the other day.  My foot is 
uncomfortable in my mouth.

scott



: - First, tell everyone the thread needs to stop and give it a little time.
: - Tell everyone the thread will be moderated and give it a little time.
: - Do it.



































-

-

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joe Abley]

On 12-May-2009, at 19:13, Randy Bush wrote:

>>> How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
>> works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive"  
>> beyond my
>> using the delete functions.
>> Dean.
>
> what's a dean?

Yeah, I don't see any of those on my Internet. Well, not as many as I  
used to.

:0
* ^(From|To|Cc):.*av8\.(com|net)
/dev/null

r1.owls#show ip access-list from-world
Extended IP access list from-world
 10 deny ip 198.3.136.0 0.0.3.255 any (193 matches)
 20 deny ip 130.105.0.0 0.0.255.255 any (2715 matches)
 30 permit ip any any (87068086 matches)
r1.owls#


Joe

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Michael Dillon]

 How about a filtered(proactive) -and- an unfiltered(reactive) feed?
>>> works for me, though i am not sure what you mean by "reactive"

The GNU Mailman software, which I believe is running the NANOG lists,
has the capability of allowing each subscriber to subscribe only to
topics which they are interested in. This is done by setting regular
expressions to tag a message with a topic, I believe this mechanism
is being exploited by the MLC right now.

If the list management would begin using this feature for all
subscribers, then we could have a list where there was a
routingonly topic, a probablyok topic and an offtopic topic.
People who are really busy could subscribe only to routingonly,
those who don't mind variety could also subscribe to probablyok,
and only those with time on their hands would subscribe
to offtopic.

All of this could be done while maintaining one single NANOG list
for marketing and posting purposes. Note that RSS feeds could
be set up in a similar fashion to pick up specific topics.

Some other useful topics might be contactrequest, securityexploits,
dnsrelated, and so on.

--Michael Dillon

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Simon Lyall]

On Wed, 13 May 2009, Michael Dillon wrote:
> The GNU Mailman software, which I believe is running the NANOG lists,
> has the capability of allowing each subscriber to subscribe only to
> topics which they are interested in. This is done by setting regular
> expressions to tag a message with a topic, I believe this mechanism
> is being exploited by the MLC right now.

Nope, we use regexes to catch the threads that are being moderated and 
some 
spam.

> If the list management would begin using this feature for all
> subscribers, then we could have a list where there was a
> routingonly topic, a probablyok topic and an offtopic topic.
> People who are really busy could subscribe only to routingonly,
> those who don't mind variety could also subscribe to probablyok,
> and only those with time on their hands would subscribe
> to offtopic.

The problem is that right now we have 10,000 users who are all set to the 
default and not any special topics.

Also chopping this list like this would probably require *more* active 
involvement from the MLC to play with filters and make sure posts were 
always correctly tagged.

Each poster would also have to be careful to correctly tag ( via subsect 
or whatever) their posts so it matched the correct topics. Then we would 
have threads that drifted and so on..



-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Michael Dillon]

On 5/14/09, Simon Lyall  wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Michael Dillon wrote:
>> The GNU Mailman software, which I believe is running the NANOG lists,
>> has the capability of allowing each subscriber to subscribe only to
>> topics which they are interested in. This is done by setting regular
>> expressions to tag a message with a topic, I believe this mechanism
>> is being exploited by the MLC right now.
>
> Nope, we use regexes to catch the threads that are being moderated and
> some spam.

Uhh, regexes is just an abbreviation for regular expressions. You said
"nope" and
then agreed with my statement above.

> The problem is that right now we have 10,000 users who are all set to the
> default and not any special topics.

This is a simple admin issue that can be fixed with a script that sets all
users to all topics. After that people can unsubscribe from the bits that
they don't want.

> Also chopping this list like this would probably require *more* active
> involvement from the MLC to play with filters and make sure posts were
> always correctly tagged.

Yep. But it would require less involvement in moderating the list, in fact
you would no longer do any list moderation at all.

> Each poster would also have to be careful to correctly tag ( via subsect
> or whatever) their posts so it matched the correct topics. Then we would
> have threads that drifted and so on..

Whoaa!!! Did you not read my posting above, Mailman identifies the topics
using regular expressions, The user does not have to tag the posts
beyond being careful about writing subject lines. For instance, if you are
posting a message about some routers crashing because of 32-bit ASNs
and you use a subject of "Have you seen this one before?" then it probably
would not get included in the routing topic. This is not exactly rocket science.

As far as drifting threads go, that is human nature, You will never change that.

Here is a page with the basics of Mailman topics


--Michael Dillon

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Simon Lyall]

On Thu, 14 May 2009, Michael Dillon wrote:
> On 5/14/09, Simon Lyall  wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Michael Dillon wrote:
>>> The GNU Mailman software, which I believe is running the NANOG lists,
>>> has the capability of allowing each subscriber to subscribe only to
>>> topics which they are interested in. This is done by setting regular
>>> expressions to tag a message with a topic, I believe this mechanism
>>> is being exploited by the MLC right now.
>>
>> Nope, we use regexes to catch the threads that are being moderated and
>> some spam.
>
> Uhh, regexes is just an abbreviation for regular expressions. You said
> "nope" and then agreed with my statement above.

No, we do not use topics. However you do use we use regexes to catch the 
threads that are being moderated and some spam.

> This is a simple admin issue that can be fixed with a script that sets all
> users to all topics. After that people can unsubscribe from the bits that
> they don't want.

Well you just Opt'ed in 10,000 people to the "randomjunk" topic and they 
now have to actively get off it.

>> Also chopping this list like this would probably require *more* active
>> involvement from the MLC to play with filters and make sure posts were
>> always correctly tagged.
>
> Yep. But it would require less involvement in moderating the list, in fact
> you would no longer do any list moderation at all.
[..]

I think you over-estimate the ability of people to tag subject lines 
correctly and underestimate the amount of working fixing up over those who 
don't. eg from the threads so far this month the following would be hard 
to regex for:

Beware surfers: cyberspace is filling up
Where to buy Internet IP addresses
Minnesota to block online gambling sites?
ground control to TWTelecom
Intel wants to hook 15 billion embedded devices to the Internet in 6 years
DSX cross-connect solution
who provides bandwidth to Telehouse?
several messages
Why is www.google.cat resolving?
Alcatel as Peering and MSE(PE)
IRC channel?
Testing LFNs
UCEProtect Level 3
webpage doesn't worok from specific address
need help in bandwidth
two interfaces one subnet
install in dallas
questions about DVFS in saving energy
another brick in the wall[ed garden]

which add up to about half the post this month. Yeah sure "DSX" and others 
are probably something you could add to the regex, but you'd never thik to 
add it *before* someone uses it.

-- 
Simon Lyall  |  Very Busy  |  Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On May 11, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> i, for one, am ready.  i have a delete key for messages that do not
> interest me.  but i do not have an undelete for messages which censors
> do not think i should read.


Randy what you are saying makes sense.  But you are forgetting the  
dark side of this behavior.  The loudness of the people with nothing  
useful to say makes it impossible for a lot of technically clueful  
people to participate.  For example, I don't even try to keep up with  
Nanog.   Keeping up with Nanog would take up far far far too many  
hours a week for me to both hold down a job and spend any reasonable  
time with my partner, children, etc.  Which is why I didn't see your  
reply until 25 days after you posted it.  Because Nanog's lack of  
useful content gives it an extremely low priority on my list.

In theory, if Nanog was topical to its own mission, Nanog would be a  
"must read every day".   I wish.

The arguments for censorship are to try and limit the list to useful  
content to all parties.   Your statement about subscribing to the 20  
lists which interest you and dumping them all in the same folder is  
actually a perfect solution (for you).  You get to choose which 20  
topics interest you.  I get to choose a different 20, etc and so  
forth.  We interact on 4 or 5 we have in common and all of the posts  
on those lists being topical to the list, is a perfect scenario.

No, I doubt perfection will ever happen on any of those lists  
nevermind all.  But it's more likely to work than the current "I can  
barely spell network and my 16-bit ethernet interface on my Redhat  
linux system isn't working" posts we routinely see on NANOG today.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On May 13, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
> The GNU Mailman software, which I believe is running the NANOG lists,
> has the capability of allowing each subscriber to subscribe only to
> topics which they are interested in. This is done by setting regular
> expressions to tag a message with a topic, I believe this mechanism
> is being exploited by the MLC right now.


I've seen this attempted to be used.  I'd like to point out that if  
the list users were smart enough to do this for themselves, the  
content on the list wouldn't be such a topic for debate.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Randy Bush]

> In theory, if Nanog was topical to its own mission, Nanog would be a  
> "must read every day".

"We all agree that Pascal needs only one or two changes.  The problem is
we each have a different set of changes."  -- pascal hacker back in the
'70s

the problem here is that the community is diverse, and we need to honor
that diversity.

> The arguments for censorship are to try and limit the list to useful  
> content to all parties.   Your statement about subscribing to the 20  
> lists which interest you and dumping them all in the same folder is  
> actually a perfect solution (for you).  You get to choose which 20  
> topics interest you.  I get to choose a different 20, etc and so  
> forth.  We interact on 4 or 5 we have in common and all of the posts  
> on those lists being topical to the list, is a perfect scenario.

qed

randy

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
> related to network operations.

Yes.

> Most know what that is. No need to make
> rules to assault the few, IMHO.


If they were few, this wouldn't be a topic.

Perhaps you have time to sit and hit delete for a few hours every day  
before you find a single post relevant to your job.  I don't, and  
neither do any of the very clueful admins who don't even try to read  
Nanog once a month, like I do.  So the more noise, the less clueful  
content.

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Scott Weeks]

--- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
Perhaps you have time to sit and hit delete for a few hours every day  
before you find a single post relevant to your job.  I don't, and





'Select All' on the 'Subject' you don't want to read about and delete.  A few 
hours turns into a few minutes... :-)

scott











































-
--
--

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> 'Select All' on the 'Subject' you don't want to read about and  
> delete.  A few hours turns into a few minutes... :-)


I do that, but at risk.  Far too many people who should know better  
use Reply to create a new thread.  So their new thread gets to be part  
of someone else's stupid thread.

If only the people who were smart enough to use Compose to start a new  
thread were an overlapping set with the people whose commentary was  
well-thought and clueful...

-- 
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source  
and other randomness




___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Ronald Cotoni]

This is the internet, can't give too much credit.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2009, at 5:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> 'Select All' on the 'Subject' you don't want to read about and
>> delete.  A few hours turns into a few minutes... :-)
>
>
> I do that, but at risk.  Far too many people who should know better
> use Reply to create a new thread.  So their new thread gets to be part
> of someone else's stupid thread.
>
> If only the people who were smart enough to use Compose to start a new
> thread were an overlapping set with the people whose commentary was
> well-thought and clueful...
>
> --
> Jo Rhett
> Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
> and other randomness
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Nanog-futures mailing list
> Nanog-futures@nanog.org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
>

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Joe Provo]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 05:58:03PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
> 
> 
> --- jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
> Perhaps you have time to sit and hit delete for a few hours every day  
> before you find a single post relevant to your job.  I don't, and
> 
> 
> 
> 'Select All' on the 'Subject' you don't want to read about and
> delete.  A few hours turns into a few minutes... :-)
[snip]

I have some thread-plonking, but find it much fmore effective to plonk
thee individuals responsible for or contributing to what I interpret
as noise.  That drastically reduces the cruft and I get to not see the
bits that torque me off unless I specifically go hunting for them. 
[You occasionally have to fish people out of the plonk when they grow
up, etc but not a big deal]

For stuff that falls in the bucket of "relevant to the population but
just not to me" I do what I do when that happens at the conference 
and move along.

Cheers,

Joe

-- 
 RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Jo Rhett  wrote:

> On May 1, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> I think most of us are broad minded and appreciate common sense topics
>> related to network operations.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>  Most know what that is. No need to make
>> rules to assault the few, IMHO.
>>
>
>
> If they were few, this wouldn't be a topic.
>
> Perhaps you have time to sit and hit delete for a few hours every day
> before you find a single post relevant to your job.  I don't, and neither do
> any of the very clueful admins who don't even try to read Nanog once a
> month, like I do.  So the more noise, the less clueful content.
>

Email clients and newsreaders have been able to do this for the gentle
reader for at least a decade or more.  Hello?  spurred local
policy knobs for just about every protocol client out there and that was ~15
years ago now?

I use jzp's approach and have for some time. It is extremely effective "for
me". Try it.

Best,

Martin

-- 
Martin Hannigan   mar...@theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Draft Policy re individual sites

[Michael Dillon]

> For stuff that falls in the bucket of "relevant to the population but
> just not to me" I do what I do when that happens at the conference
> and move along.

And there is the heart of the problem with all of the suggestions about
defining what is on and off topic. For any single individual, there will
always be lots of things relevant to the population, but not to that
individual. The bigger the list, and the more diverse the population,
the more likely this is to happen.

Now that the ISP industry has diversified into so many varying business
models from Equinix to Rackspace to AT&T to Sprint, it is no longer
possible to have an Internet ops list that is as focused as NANOG
circa 1995. And now that there are 10,000 people on the list, the
area of fully overlapping interest is getting very small.

However, it would be interesting if someone took the time to go
through the entire archive of NANOG conferences and classified
all of the presentation topics, then published the list. If ever this
categorised list exists, it would be good to use it as a guideline
for what is topical on the NANOG list.

--Michael Dillon

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures