Subject: [[email-masked]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:56:49 -0700

IESG,

I would like to request that we consider Dean Anderson posting
privileges to be removed for the dnsop and ietf maillist.

As you can see from my private mail that Dean forwarded to the IETF
list, I have given him an official warning to refrain from sending any
more abusive mails to IETF maillists. Despite this, he immediately
followed up by sending more abusive mails to the dnsop and ietf
mail lists.

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
---

----- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
X-X-Sender: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list

FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of 
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700
From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
To: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: David Meyer <[email-masked]>, Rob Austein <[email-masked]>,
     Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Subject: [[email-masked]: 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
---

----- Forwarded message from David Kessens <[email-masked]> -----

Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:36:11 -0700
From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
To: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dnsop] An attack that DNSSEC would have defended against...

Dean,

You are welcome to post to this list if you have DNS operational
issues to discuss.

Any issues that you might have with ISC are outside the charter of
this working group and I would like to request you to take them up
privately with ISC. 

Thanks,

David Kessens
---

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 06:09:23PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> Harald, you may be right about DNSSEC protecting from this. I haven't looked at
> your data, yet. However, you probably aren't about to be very well protected by
> DNSSEC, despite the progress of specifications on DNSEXT.
> 
> DNSSEC isn't deployable on F-root nor the other anycast'ed* roots, nor a lot of
> other anycast'ed non-root servers.  DNS servers with the Anycast Extension are
> increasingly popular due to suppression of discussion of negative aspects of the
> Anycast Extension on forums such as Nanog as recently as May, 2005 because only
> information that promotes ISC's view is allowed on Nanog, misleading network
> operators about the Anycast Extension.  Many root server operators accepted
> ISC's assurances as an unofficial IETF liason and deployed Anycast Extension on
> production servers and on root servers in violation of RFC 2870**. They appear
> not to have understood that they were deploying an untested, undocumented, and
> unapproved Anycast Extension.
> 
> And despite substantiated criticism on DNSEXT and DNSOP by persons including Dan
> Bernstein, Iljitsch van Beijnum, Dean Anderson, and others since the 2002 Nanog
> presentation by ISC, ISC has not yet even publicly acknowledged the problems
> with the Anycast Extension, and continues to promote the extension as completely
> safe. ISC even describes it to prospective customers as "uncontroversial",
> despite the controversies on DNSEXT, DNSOP, and Nanog beginning after the Nanog
> presentation in 2002.  
> 
> The Anycast Extension is now proposed to the GROW working group some 3 years
> after being described to Nanog as operationally safe and stable.  At present,
> the Anycast Extension proposal appears to be dead or dying on both DNSOP and
> GROW WGs because of evidence that it can't work in general, and the specialized
> conditions where it can work are uninteresting to the current users such as root
> DNS operators and other DNS operators, and thus uninteresting to ISC.
> 
> The only reason there are no present complaints with root operations is that DNS
> is mostly still stateless small UDP packets, reducing to RFC 1546 Anycast***,
> which works fine with stateless small UDP packets. And it may well be that those
> working on DNSSEC testing comply with the assumptions stated on the Anycast
> Extension.
> 
> So the question is when will F-root and other roots be able to handle TCP and
> large UDP packets from any internet host, including those hosts serviced by
> networks that use fine-grained load-splitting as described by RFC1812?.  When
> will operators be informed of these problems by ISC?
> 
> Critics of these problems, particularly Dan Bernstein and Dean Anderson, have
> been attacked personally by persons generally associated with ISC or friendly to
> ISC with no remedial action by the respective organizations (IETF and Nanog) in
> spite of well-documented complaints.  Uncontrolled personal corruption at the
> IETF and Nanog appears to be preventing actual progress.
> 
>                 --Dean
> 
> [* the Anycast Extension
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-01.txt doesn't work
> in general because routers are allowed by RFC1812 to do fine-grained "load
> splitting" if they wish. Fine-grained load splitting, also known as Per Packet
> Load Balancing (PPLB) and other names, prevents Anycast from being used with TCP
> or large UDP packets and fragments. The draft documents a number of assumptions
> that have to be true in order for the Anycast Extension to work. These
> assumptions aren't true in general.]
> 
> [** RFC 2870 section 2.6 specifies that Root DNS server operators must operate
> servers that respond to _any_ Internet host.  That is, Root nameservers that
> only work for say, 95% of the world are not acceptable.
> 
>    2.6 Root servers MUST answer queries from any internet host, i.e. may
>        not block root name resolution from any valid IP address, except
>        in the case of queries causing operational problems, in which
>        case the blocking SHOULD last only as long as the problem, and be
>        as specific as reasonably possible.
> ]
> 
> [*** RFC1546 notes that:
> 
>    It is important to remember that anycasting is a stateless service.
>    An internetwork has no obligation to deliver two successive packets
>    sent to the same anycast address to the same host.
> ]
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> > I'm not sure this is on-topic for this list, but may be an illustrative 
> > story....
> > 
> > I had some percentage of the queries for a domain I use hijacked by an 
> > attacker last week. The technique involved was interesting to me.
> > 
> > Moral: Know your secondaries, and what happens to them..... if someone 
> > steals your secondary's NAME, you're toast.
> > 
> > If I'd had DNSSEC, and the people looking it up had had DNSSEC, this would 
> > have been a detectable DOS attack, not a stealth redirection attack.
> > 
> > Detailed writeup: http://www.alvestrand.no/subjects/dns-attack-1.html
> > 
> >                       Harald
> > 
> > 
> > .
> > dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> > web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> > mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> dnsop resources:_____________________________________________________
> web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop.html
> mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/index.html

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Nicholas Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:09:13 -0700

> 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

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 13:22:02 -0400

>that I'll list the 1,000 reasons why I think you're wrong in my email to the

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

---

From: "Nicholas Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:46:33 -0700

> mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.

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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:39:38 -0400 (EDT)

> 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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 23:28:01 -0400 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

>From RFC 3683:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 9, 2004, I attempted to send the DNSOP Co-chair Rob Austein a note about
draft-ietf-dnsop-dontpublish-unreachable-03.txt.  This message was rejected by
Mr. Austein, and I was told that Av8 Internets' IP addresses were Hijacked.  Mr
Austein was also an ISC Employee.  It turned out that Austein had been using a
counterfeit blacklist that was defaming Av8 Internet. These messages aren't just
sent to me, but to Av8 Internet's customers as well. This is defamation: that
is, a provably false statement made to a third party (Av8 Internet's customers):
a defamatory statement made by an IETF worker on official IETF business for
which the IETF and ISOC is legally responsible. Besides the defamatory aspect,
the IETF rules require WG chairs to interact with participants, and Austein's
use of the counterfeit blacklist prevents interaction in violation of IETF
rules.  Austein needs to use an official email address that accepts email from
IETF participants, and needs to stop making defamatory messages during official
IETF business. Austein has not yet done so, as of 9/24/2005. A complaint was
made to the IETF main list on May 10, 2004.  We still have several years in
which to discover pertinent facts before begining litigation on the defamation
issue.  We seem to be discovering official hostility, which isn't far from
malice. This remains an open issue.

June 21, 2004, a complaint was made after Paul Vixie called Av8 Internet by the 
disparaging name "dv8" several times.  No response on this.

October 4, 2004, a complaint was made after Stephane Bortzmeyer made disparaging 
remarks on the DNSOP list. The subject under discussion was also the ISC Anycast 
Extension.

I've just noticed that a number of these personal attacks involve the ISC
Anycast Extension, and are made by people involved with or friendly to ISC.  
Though, not all. A few are related to frequent posters to the Nanog list such as
Dave Crocker, Steven Bellovin, Stephane Bortzmeyer, etc. Over the years, I've
been involved in a number of controversial or at least unpopular issues
involving Nanog sometimes. On most or maybe all of these issues, I've been
vindicated and proved right over time.  See
http://www.iadl.org/nanog/nanog-story.html Vindication is apparently quite
irritating to those proved wrong.

There are a number of other incidents where personal attacks are made. Nick
Strand was told his view was a waste of time by the present IETF chair. In fact,
his view was articulate, and substantiated by facts.  These attacks are meant to
disrupt discussion.  If for example, Mr. Strand was wrong, people would make a
rational argument against his view. But they had no rational argument, leaving
them with only personal attacks and name-calling. Jefsey Morfin also comes to 
mind as a victim. No reparation has been made that I know of.

While name-calling and some kinds of professional dishonesty are usually merely
discourteous behaviors that don't ultimately affect the operation or decisions
of the IETF, by contrast, the failure to address valid DNS operational
criticisms by a Working Group charged with DNS operational issues is a
significant failure.  But more gravely still, active efforts by a WG Chair to
suppress valid technical criticism for what seems to be the financial benefit of
one company (ISC) is not just merely inappropriate, but in fact well beyond what
can be tolerated of an allegedly vendor neutral forum.  This has gone well
beyond mere name-calling and is now a serious issue of IETF operational
integrity.
 
Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:43:32 -0700 (PDT)

> penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG.

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

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 19:25:11 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> >> FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant 
> >> criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP 
> >> list.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Subject: [[email-masked]: Re: [dnsop] An attack 
> that DNSSEC 
> >> would
> > 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?
> > 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
> >
> >
> 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

---

From: David Kessens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 20:05:11 -0700

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

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.

> 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
---

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 11:00:55 +0200

Nicholas Staff wrote:
>>criticism of 

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

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:01:47 -0700

On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:

> None of my emails have been abusive.

Speaking as a 99.99999999% passive observer around here, I consider  
Dean Anderson's emails, in aggregate, abusive. They consume precious  
mental bandwidth, in many cases with no material technical content,  
and thus make it more difficult for me (and I assume many others) to  
follow the flow of IETF discussion.

Strictly a personal opinion.  -Tim

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 07:31:13 -0700

> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Nicholas Staff wrote:
> >>criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the 
> DNSOP list.
> >>
> >>--
> > 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?
> 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.
> 
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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 10:47:26 -0400

> posts are a DOS then the posts trying to protect us from them have been an

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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:54:33 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> 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.

> 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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:08:39 -0400 (EDT)

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-masked] wrote:

> > retribution?

> 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 being inappropriately protected by
members in the IETF leadership.  This protection is well-documented in the
unchecked abuse that has been conducted and reported by several people.  

But there has also been abuse of Dan Bernstein after posting on the topic of the
Anycast Extension as well.  Bernstein's email address was posted in violation of
IETF rules.  This shows that it isn't just Dean Anderson being attacked, but a
certain group being protected.  

Kessens is supposed to promote IETF interests in his position as Area Director.  
The IETF leadership, the IESG, the A.D.s, and the WG chairs are also supposed to
act in the IETF interests and uphold the rules of the IETF.  The management of
an organization has a legal obligation to uphold its rules and act in the
organizations' interests, rather than their personal interests.  In this case,
the rules are written down, and clear.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:29:34 -0400 (EDT)

> he was just told to refrain from such attacks.

Entirely false.

I sent a note stating that:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/dnsop/msg03553.html

This is not an attack. It states that mis-operation of root DNS servers is a
valid topic for DNSOP, refuting your claim that my criticism was somehow 
inappropriate.

The charter for DNSOP states
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/dnsop-charter.html

1. Define the processes by which Domain Name System (DNS) software
      may be efficiently and correctly administered, configured, and
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      operated on Internet networks. This will include root zone
      ^^^^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      name servers, gTLD name servers, name servers for other DNS
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
      zones, iterative DNS resolvers, and recursive DNS resolvers.
      As part of this effort, the group will produce documents
      explaining to the general Internet community what processes
      and mechanisms should be employed for the effective management
      and operation of DNS software. 

2. Publish documents concerning DNSSEC operational procedures. 

Plainly, correct operation of Root zone nameservers is a valid topic for DNSOP
as described above.  The subject of mis-operation of Root DNS servers is proper
topic.

Plainly, the Anycast Extension also affects DNSSEC operational procedures.

> accusations as the ones in his earlier messages to the dnsop mail

Another false characterization. The message is at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37864.html

I added no additional accusations, but merely forwarded Kessens' threat.  This 
is an administrative complaint, and on-topic for the IETF list.

> he was warned not to repeat.

I didn't send a complaint?  Really? 

   "FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of 
    mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list."

Sounds like a complaint to me, which is how I meant it, and plainly, how 
everyone else took it.

> this behavior on two different mail lists right after he was warned.

Well, that "out-of-scope" question seems to be a dog that won't hunt.

And it is plain that you did send a complaint because of my complaint to IETF 
list. You mentioned that post in your complaint as a basis for your complaint:
And I note that your complaint was in fact a "reply-to" my complaint to the ietf 
list.

Kessens' wrote in his complaint:
  As you can see from my private mail that Dean forwarded to the IETF
  list, I have given him an official warning to refrain from sending any
  more abusive mails to IETF maillists. Despite this, he immediately
  followed up by sending more abusive mails to the dnsop and ietf
	         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  mail lists.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg37865.html

Note both the "ietf mail lists", and the fact that his complaint was a reply-to 
my complaint to the ietf list.

Plainly, Kessens acted in retaliation.

> I hope this helps to clarify the events.

No, but we have records that establish withou doubt the events.

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:38:11 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Dave Crocker writes:
>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.

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 21:14:00 -0700

> >> 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.
> >
> >
> >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.
> 
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

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:09:35 -0400

> block someone's posting rights.  It is, in so many words, done by a 

I was too cryptic.

Were we only subject to discussion of a 3683 Last Call and were that 
discussion limited to the actual merits of the complaint, we would have very, 
very little ietf list traffic in this realm.

What actually happens is that we get lots of list discussion at each step 
along the way, starting with individual pique at a claimed offense, individual 
pique that someone posted a note stating their individual pique, endless 
discussion about proper process, and endless discussion about abuses of process.

My point about delegation is that it is based on a desire to offload 
some/much/most/all of a task so that the full community is not burdened with 
all of the details.  The difference between the "some/much/most/all" of course 
depends upon how much of the burden the community wants to retain.

The concept of a public Last Call, for the disciplinary process, suggests that 
only the final stage of the process needs to be fully public.

If we are going to get the desired benefit that comes from delegating things, 
we need to be more selective in what is discussed publicly.  That's not a call 
for censorship.  It is a call for discipline.

For one thing, debating the official details of process requirements should 
almost certainly be taken offline from the IETF list.

For another, individual pique is best pursued either by private exchange or 
through formal complaint.  Neither requires burdening the full IETF list.

d/
-- 

  Dave Crocker

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:15:05 +0200

I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments for
either or both of

1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute
mediator.

2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning procedures
from the IESG.

     Brian

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>>> That's the reason the process model delegates handling such problems 
>>> to specific individuals, rather than having all of us, together, 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> I was too cryptic.
> 
> discussion limited to the actual merits of the complaint, we would have 
> very, very little ietf list traffic in this realm.
> 
> What actually happens is that we get lots of list discussion at each 
> step along the way, starting with individual pique at a claimed offense, 
> individual pique that someone posted a note stating their individual 
> pique, endless discussion about proper process, and endless discussion 
> about abuses of process.
> 
> some/much/most/all of a task so that the full community is not burdened 
> with all of the details.  The difference between the 
> "some/much/most/all" of course depends upon how much of the burden the 
> community wants to retain.
> 
> The concept of a public Last Call, for the disciplinary process, 
> suggests that only the final stage of the process needs to be fully public.
> 
> If we are going to get the desired benefit that comes from delegating 
> things, we need to be more selective in what is discussed publicly.  
> That's not a call for censorship.  It is a call for discipline.
> 
> For one thing, debating the official details of process requirements 
> should almost certainly be taken offline from the IETF list.
> 
> For another, individual pique is best pursued either by private exchange 
> or through formal complaint.  Neither requires burdening the full IETF 
> list.
> 
> d/

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:14:07 -0400

Dear Brian;

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:15:05 +0200
> 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning procedures

I would support this. I suspect that suggestion number 1 might be most appropriate.

These cases are going to be tough, and an outside review with some measure of independence from the
system will be necessary to be seen as fair. For example, in the original email of David Kessens,
which contained a mail thread of "abusive" mail, the trouble to me was that no one of those
emails contained anything I would regard as abusive. The trouble is that the abuse (if any) is in
the pattern over time, not what's said at any one time.

I remember back in 1997 or so being on a working group mailing list that was subject to the
attentions of the Alternic and IPv8 crowd. While their posts were mostly polite, the shear number of
them, and the way that things could go off on total tangents did represent a DOS. (Frankly, the
words Chinese Water Torture come to mind.) Once you've been subjected to something like that for a
while, there is a real danger of over-reaction, banning people just because they innocently bring up
a sensitive topic. And, of course, it may be hard to convince people you are being fair no matter
what you do, if there is no one email you can point  to as evidence.

So I think that intrinsic to fairly treating this problem is a need to convince someone on the
outside of the reality of the perceived abuse. If the offender consistently (say) calls someone rude
names, that is easy, and  can  be done (say) on this list. If the abuse consists of a pattern of
email traffic over time, then someone will have to at least dip into the stream and read it, and
that (to me) suggests an Ombudsman. In the case that engendered this discussion, for example, I see
no outwardly abusive emails of the name-calling variety, but neither do I feel the inclination to
read a few months of back traffic for the relevant WG's. In the best Scottish tradition, I would
therefore have to return a verdict of "not proven," and would feel happier if there was a report
from an outside party.

If there is to be a committee, I would suggest that it be formed randomly from volunteers who  hold
no other posts, in the NomCom fashion.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:47:36 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> 
> 1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a 
> dispute mediator.
> 
> 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning 
> procedures from the IESG.
> 
>      Brian
Ahh, you beat me to the punch  ;)

I'm a big fan of the netiquette committee.  I'd like to suggest that
volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into the hat" and that members
be selected blindly from that pool.  This would of course avoid any stacking
or favoritism, but we would need a "qualifier" that prevented interlopers
from submitting their name.  Though I hate to suggest it as it would exclude
me from selection, having attended an IETF meeting in the last x years could
possibly be a good filter.

I'm probably getting ahead of things but I was also thinking some controls
could be implemented to discourage frivolous accusations.  I realize that
someone who repeatedly accuses falsely won't be taken seriously, but
sometimes the goal is disruption and uncertainty which unfortunately these
accusations are almost guaranteed to provide.

Anyway I think it's a great idea Brian.

nick

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 00:38:00 -0400

> possibly be a good filter.

Maybe.  I see two potential problems:

1) Serving on this committee is going to be no fun at all.  Getting
qualified people to sign up for what will only be seen as a sh*t job
is going to be difficult.  And how do you exclude certain known
(repeat) troublemakers from throwing their hat into the ring?  Or
maybe you don't, but then if they get selected, they would then have
the opportunity to practice their own unique form of DOS on the
netiquette committee?

2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette committee,
during the committee is considering a request, and after the committee
has rendered a decision, is ruled out of scope, it's not going to help
the very long discussions such as this one which plague the IETF list.
In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser will
immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette committee, which
means that after inventing this entire mechanism, it may not have any
effect other than prolonging the agony.

Problem (2) could be solved by making the decisions of the netiquette
committee not subject to appeal, but that causes its own problems and
potential for abuse of the people who do end up on the committee.  But
if you don't, then people who are intent on practicing their DOS
attacks (or otherwise impose their view of their world on us) will
simply use our procedures against us.

I suppose we could try to add some sanctions such as using a very
large ban time (measured in multiple years), so the benefit of trying
to get someone banned from the list is worth the cost, assuming we are
willing to preserve through the entire tortious process of (a) a
decision by the netiquette committe, (b) an appeal to the IESG, (c) an
appeal to the IAB, and eventually (d) an appeal to the Internet
Society --- or perhaps we could impose an automatic doubling of the
sanctions if someone attempts an appeal, and double the eventual ban
time at each level of appeal if the banning is eventually upheld.

But there isn't really a good solution to this problem, unfortunately.

						- Ted

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:55:42 -0400 (EDT)

This isn't going to work, with ordinary members.

But Ts'o makes good points. You can't know easily who is trustworthy.  Though
you can know sometimes who is not trustworthy.

I've seen a number of people in the leadership act inappropriately. Offlist, Ted
Ts'o, in his official role as Sargeant at Arms, was recently professionally
dishonest by falsely attributing statements to me that I didn't make. Ts'o was
summarizing the arguments I raised. Since Ts'o went to MIT, and since (if I
recall correctly) we dated the same girl at different times, I'm not sure if I'm
more comfortable thinking this is personally motivated rather than some sort of
incompetence at the task of literature summary.  But fortunately, freshman must
now demonstrate skill at literature summary.

But Ts'o also asserted false facts[*] to the IETF Chair that are easily checked.  
He did this repeatedly, after being repeatedly informed that his fact claim was
false. The IETF Chair was informed, but took no action on these serious ethical
lapses.

One needs to hire lawyers to do this sort of thing.  Lawyers are trained to find
facts, and to approach arguments dispassionately. Further, failing an acceptable
resolution, such disputes may wind up in litigation, so finding a fair and
honest solution is definitely going to be worth it.

[* Ts'o asserted that Alan Brown lost only one court case. In fact, Brown lost
three: One case (Domainz) was defamatory statements on an email list. Two others
(Xtra and Actrix) involved false claims of ISPs having open relays.]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:44:01 +0200

Dean,

You are already the subject of a request to initiate action 
under RFC 3683 and this message will be added to the dossier.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Brian E Carpenter
IETF Chair

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 15:56:38 +0200

>1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute

Certainly a way to defuse some issues.  This can be to settle a 
dispute. This can be to address COI. Technical COI cannot be avoided 
and they may help progressing. But the IETF is for all. So the 
Ombudsman should be in a position to evaluate and block the 
propositions building exclusives, as a real Denial of IETF Services 
to some needs.

It could also be a report to IESG/IAB, or  granting a "minority 
position" status. The aim is to first to stop the noise over the 
opponent's supposed noise. If the Ombudman accept that the opponent's 
contribution is genuine, he will not be obliged to address all the 
trolls fired at him. The noise over his contributions will disapear. 
People interested in debating the opponents positions will be able to 
do it in public, this can only help a more serious consensus.

jfc

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 07:23:50 -0700

Dean Anderson wrote:
[adhomirama]

Regardless of all of this officialdom, might it be useful
to put together a list of h:j equivalents for Thunderbird
and other popular mail clients to make this list a more
enjoyable read?

		Mike

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:55:40 -0400

> 1. An IETF Ombudsman (or Ombudscommittee), to act as a dispute

Good idea.  These disputes take a lot of care and interested parties
are often not willing or able to put the time into them that they
need.  "Discussion" can get abrupt and counterproductive.  Even the
very existence of an ombudsman will ensure that parties approach a
dispute more carefully.

> 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning procedures

I don't think so.  I prefer that this responsibility stay with a few
individuals, so that it is taken very seriously -- not only by them
but by everyone.  A committee would lead to dilution of responsibility
as well as endless discussion on every dispute.

swb

---

From: Alexis Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:00:31 -0400 (EDT)

Until this point, I quietly lurked and read this discussion with a modicum
of interest, attributing the problem to nothing but overdeveloped
personalities feeling the need to do a little strutting - annoying, but
harmless, and in some way representative of most discussions on the list.
However, I feel the need to throw in my two cents at this point.

This is completely inappropriate.  What do Ted Ts'o's dating rituals
have to do with anything?  The whole conversation is absurd and a waste of
time.  I initially believed the conversation was slowly devolving, but I
now realize it never existed at a level high enough to allow devolution.
I would say I second the motion to censor Dean's messages, except
that a more accurate way of putting it would be that I hundredth the
decision.
-Alexis Turner

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:

::Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 02:55:42 -0400 (EDT)
::From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
::To: Theodore Ts'o <[email-masked]>
::Cc: Nick Staff <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
::Subject: Re: delegating (portions of) ietf list disciplinary process
::
::This isn't going to work, with ordinary members.
::
::But Ts'o makes good points. You can't know easily who is trustworthy.  Though
::you can know sometimes who is not trustworthy.
::
::I've seen a number of people in the leadership act inappropriately. Offlist, Ted
::Ts'o, in his official role as Sargeant at Arms, was recently professionally
::dishonest by falsely attributing statements to me that I didn't make. Ts'o was
::summarizing the arguments I raised. Since Ts'o went to MIT, and since (if I
::recall correctly) we dated the same girl at different times, I'm not sure if I'm
::more comfortable thinking this is personally motivated rather than some sort of
::incompetence at the task of literature summary.  But fortunately, freshman must
::now demonstrate skill at literature summary.
::
::But Ts'o also asserted false facts[*] to the IETF Chair that are easily checked.
::He did this repeatedly, after being repeatedly informed that his fact claim was
::false. The IETF Chair was informed, but took no action on these serious ethical
::lapses.
::
::One needs to hire lawyers to do this sort of thing.  Lawyers are trained to find
::facts, and to approach arguments dispassionately. Further, failing an acceptable
::resolution, such disputes may wind up in litigation, so finding a fair and
::honest solution is definitely going to be worth it.
::
::[* Ts'o asserted that Alan Brown lost only one court case. In fact, Brown lost
::three: One case (Domainz) was defamatory statements on an email list. Two others
::(Xtra and Actrix) involved false claims of ISPs having open relays.]
::
::On Wed, 28 Sep 2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
::
::> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:47:36PM -0700, Nick Staff wrote:
::> > > 2. An IETF "netiquette" committee, to offload list banning
::> > > procedures from the IESG.
::> >
::> > I'm a big fan of the netiquette committee.  I'd like to suggest that
::> > volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into the hat" and that members
::> > be selected blindly from that pool.  This would of course avoid any stacking
::> > or favoritism, but we would need a "qualifier" that prevented interlopers
::> > from submitting their name.  Though I hate to suggest it as it would exclude
::> > me from selection, having attended an IETF meeting in the last x years could
::> > possibly be a good filter.
::>
::> Maybe.  I see two potential problems:
::>
::> 1) Serving on this committee is going to be no fun at all.  Getting
::> qualified people to sign up for what will only be seen as a sh*t job
::> is going to be difficult.  And how do you exclude certain known
::> (repeat) troublemakers from throwing their hat into the ring?  Or
::> maybe you don't, but then if they get selected, they would then have
::> the opportunity to practice their own unique form of DOS on the
::> netiquette committee?
::>
::> 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette committee,
::> during the committee is considering a request, and after the committee
::> has rendered a decision, is ruled out of scope, it's not going to help
::> the very long discussions such as this one which plague the IETF list.
::> In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser will
::> immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette committee, which
::> means that after inventing this entire mechanism, it may not have any
::> effect other than prolonging the agony.
::>
::> Problem (2) could be solved by making the decisions of the netiquette
::> committee not subject to appeal, but that causes its own problems and
::> potential for abuse of the people who do end up on the committee.  But
::> if you don't, then people who are intent on practicing their DOS
::> attacks (or otherwise impose their view of their world on us) will
::> simply use our procedures against us.
::>
::> I suppose we could try to add some sanctions such as using a very
::> large ban time (measured in multiple years), so the benefit of trying
::> to get someone banned from the list is worth the cost, assuming we are
::> willing to preserve through the entire tortious process of (a) a
::> decision by the netiquette committe, (b) an appeal to the IESG, (c) an
::> appeal to the IAB, and eventually (d) an appeal to the Internet
::> Society --- or perhaps we could impose an automatic doubling of the
::> sanctions if someone attempts an appeal, and double the eventual ban
::> time at each level of appeal if the banning is eventually upheld.
::>
::> But there isn't really a good solution to this problem, unfortunately.
::>
::> 						- Ted

---

From: "Thomas Gal" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:23:51 -0700

> > I'm interested to know whether people would see arguments 
> for either 
> > or both of
> > 
> procedures 

Both great ideas. I think this kind of issue is not predicated on deep
technical knowledge, and really anyone who is familiar with the general IETF
process would be quite capable to deal with such an issue. I'm firmly would
put my faith in a comitee of say 5-10 over a smaller number any day however,
with posting rights only revocable by unanimous consensus.

> I'm a big fan of the netiquette committee.  I'd like to 
> suggest that volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into 
> the hat" and that members be selected blindly from that pool. 
>  This would of course avoid any stacking or favoritism, but 
> we would need a "qualifier" that prevented interlopers from 
> submitting their name.  Though I hate to suggest it as it 
> would exclude me from selection, having attended an IETF 
> meeting in the last x years could possibly be a good filter.
> 

Not sure about any good qualifiers, but I think it would be prudent to say
force a member to recuse themselves if the issue concerns a WG in which they
take an active roll.

> I'm probably getting ahead of things but I was also thinking 
> some controls could be implemented to discourage frivolous 
> accusations.  I realize that someone who repeatedly accuses 
> falsely won't be taken seriously, but sometimes the goal is 
> disruption and uncertainty which unfortunately these 

First time you falsely accuse someone there should be a warning. It could
also just be considered a learning opportunity. I don't think we should put
up with more than a second time.

> Anyway I think it's a great idea Brian.

Perhaps a good start would be to identify a few messages/threads which
embody the type of posting we are trying to stop. 

	Also I think a handy mechanism would be the notion of a "cooling
off" period. While it may be futile to get someone to drop an issue
completely, perhaps allowing WG Chairs for example to say "don't bring this
up for a week or your posting rights will definitely be rescinded" is a
simple way to force people to cool off, rethink their positions, and
possibly come up with an amicable solution, possibly off the list even. We
certanly don't wan't altercations taking place on the list. For example, I
don't think that many issues start out too far outside what is acceptable,
but as improprieties creep in it becomes difficult to blame one person
without blaming another. I think this mechanism also provides a much more
clear cut defenition of what is acceptable and what is not. 

-Tom

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:51:46 +0200

> as well as endless discussion on every dispute.

Good point.

As much as I believe the IETF should not give veto authority to any single 
individual, this is one case where it is probably better.

My sense is that, without exception, IETF participants involved in deciding 
process objections has taken their role extremely seriously.  It's difficult 
to believe that this would be any different.  In addition, any abuse by the 
ombudsperson will be very quickly reported and corrected.

d/
-- 

  Dave Crocker

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 01:16:15 -0700

> As much as I believe the IETF should not give veto authority 
> to any single individual, this is one case where it is 
> probably better.
> 
> My sense is that, without exception, IETF participants 
> involved in deciding process objections has taken their role 
> extremely seriously.  It's difficult to believe that this 
> would be any different.  In addition, any abuse by the 
Dave-

Of course it's a matter of opinion, so it's not like I'm trying to tell you
I'm right and you're wrong, but think about every high court in the United
states and many in Europe - none of them are 1 person but rather a group.
There are reasons for this, most important of which is no one is right all
the time - no one no matter how wisened sees every situation clearly from
all angles - not to  mention most everyone has their hot issues and areas of
predjudice or misunderstanding.  Having a group of seven or nine helps
neutralize individual errors.  I'd feel much safer being judged by tcp than
udp.

nick

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:47:05 -0400 (EDT)

> neutralize individual errors.  I'd feel much safer being judged by tcp than

This is a good idea.

		--Dean

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:00:18 -0700

> From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> 

Ted-
Sorry for taking so long to respond - I wanted to give some thought to your
questions before replying (comments in-line)

> suggest that 
> > volunteers be allowed to "throw their names into the hat" and that 
> > members be selected blindly from that pool.  This would of course 
> > avoid any stacking or favoritism, but we would need a 
> "qualifier" that 
> > prevented interlopers from submitting their name.  Though I hate to 
> > suggest it as it would exclude me from selection, having 
> attended an 
> > IETF meeting in the last x years could possibly be a good filter.
> 
> 1) Serving on this committee is going to be no fun at all.  
> Getting qualified people to sign up for what will only be 
> seen as a sh*t job is going to be difficult. 

I figure if Brian was able to get multiple volunteers for the IESG scribe
position (of which I was one), then this should be a cakewalk ;)

> And how do you 
> exclude certain known
> (repeat) troublemakers from throwing their hat into the ring? 
>  Or maybe you don't, but then if they get selected, they 
> would then have the opportunity to practice their own unique 
> form of DOS on the netiquette committee?
> 
Here are some general design points I've been thinking about to help prevent
the DOS you speak of as well as some other pitfalls:

1. 7 or 9 member committee
2. Members selected blindly from pool of volunteers
*Let's not forget that no matter who you are, there is someone out there who
thinks you're a troublemaker, that you're dumb, mean, etc.  This is why it's
open to all volunteers, to prevent the tainting of the committee and the
stacking towards one point of view.*
3. Majority can close discussion and force vote
3a. Unanimous minority can stay vote for max of 2 days
4. Verdicts are made up of 2 separate votes
4a. In the first vote, the committee members vote whether to sustain or
refute the petitioners claim.
4b. In the second vote (which immediately follows the first) the members
vote on the punishment. One of the choices MUST always be to issue a
warning.  The other choices will vary depending on the petition.
4bb.  Anyone who is issued 3 warnings in less that a years time, on
subsequent "punishment" votes there MUST NOT be the choice to issue a
warning.  This will be for a period of 1 year beginning on the day their
third warning was issued.
4c. Note that when a petition is sustained the committee votes on a
PUNISHMENT FOR THE ACCUSED, and when a petition is refuted the committee
votes on a PUNISHMENT FOR THE ACCUSER.  This should help curtail frivolity.
5. Any sentence suspending someone's posting rights due to abusive/off-topic
posts is required to pass with no greater than 1 dissenter.  This is to
enforce the idea that if there can be sensible disagreement about whether a
post's off-topic, then it's too subjective for such a serious punishment.
5a. When 2 voting choices differ only on length of time, then their votes
may be added together to reach the needed majority - however in those cases
the shorter of the two sentences MUST be imposed.  For example if 6 members
vote for a 1 year ban and 2 vote for 30 days (with 1 voting for a warning)
then even though there is not sufficient majority for a ban, the six votes
and the two votes can be added together which means the ban will pass -
however it can only be a 30 day ban and can never be the greater of the two.
6. In all cases the dissenting minority is allowed to publish their
dissention along-side the majority verdict (in fact, one MUST NOT ever be
stored, displayed, or considered without the other.

> 2) Unless discussion of the decisions of the netiquette 
> committee, during the committee is considering a request, and 
> after the committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of 
> scope, it's not going to help the very long discussions such 
> as this one which plague the IETF list.
> In the worst case, we can assume that the mailing list abuser 
> will immediately appeal any decision of the netiquette 
> committee, which means that after inventing this entire 
> mechanism, it may not have any effect other than prolonging the agony.

I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate the
decision I can accept it and move on.  That's another reason why I think it
should be an unmanipulated membership.

I also think the dissenting opinion will help here.  Sometimes just hearing
someone agree with you is enough to calm the whole situation down and give
someone a sense of justice or understanding - even if the majority verdict
is against them.

thanks,
Nick

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:12:15 +1000

I, for one, welcome our new,
"everyone must be heard multiple times and feel good"-bearing overlords.

Oh. This isn't a slashdot discussion? My bad.

gja
(feeling grumpy)

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:00:00 -0400

> should be an unmanipulated membership.

That may be true for you, OK.  But that's irrelevant.  What about
someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is determined to
make a nuisance of himself?  How long could someone who is genuinely
determined to carry out a DOS attack on the IETF should be allowed to
do so?

I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in parparticular,
although I do have some private opinions on this matter.  The question
is should we design a process which is open to abuse in this manner?
It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole and
assuming that all of the participants won't violate societal norms an
exploit said security hole.  If this is considered irresponsible when
designing a protocol, should it be considered irresponsible when
designing organizational policies?

						- Ted

---

From: "Nick Staff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 16:59:11 -0700

> committee, 
> > > during the committee is considering a request, and after the 
> > > committee has rendered a decision, is ruled out of scope, 
> it's not 
> > > going to help the very long discussions such as this one which 
> > > plague the IETF list.
> > > means that after inventing this entire mechanism, it may not have 
> > > any effect other than prolonging the agony.
> > 
> > I know personally, if I feel a process is fair, then even if I hate 
> > the decision I can accept it and move on.  That's another 
> reason why I 
> > think it should be an unmanipulated membership.
> 
> That may be true for you, OK.  But that's irrelevant.  What 
> about someone who is mentally disturbed, or someone who is 
> determined to make a nuisance of himself?  How long could 
> someone who is genuinely determined to carry out a DOS attack 
> on the IETF should be allowed to do so?
> 
> I am not necessarily making any claims about anybody in 
> parparticular, although I do have some private opinions on 
> this matter.  The question is should we design a process 
> which is open to abuse in this manner?
> It seems like designing a protocol with a known security hole 
> and assuming that all of the participants won't violate 
> societal norms an exploit said security hole.  If this is 
> considered irresponsible when designing a protocol, should it 
> be considered irresponsible when designing organizational policies?
> 
> 						- Ted
Absolutely I agree Ted.  I was just trying to express how it would effect me
as that's the only position I can (sometimes) speak authoritatively on.
Ultimately I don't see what you're suggesting that has any addition controls
- whether it's a committee or a single person the same appeal process can be
used and the same controls put in place.  If you are referring to one of the
committee members being wacko I think I provided sufficient control for that
(as nothing requires unanimous vote and voting can be forced by majority).
If it's a nut job list participant then I guess I could call some old
friends in South Central Los Angeles to chop off their fingers but then
there's always speech recognition...I guess my question to you is please
tell me exactly what your concern is (if you want to do this off-list so we
don't annoy everyone that's cool with me) and I promise I will address them
and try to work with you to find an agreeable solution.

Best,

Nick