Dean,

Can you please state what decision you are appealing against?
It cannot be an IESG decision because no IESG decision has been
made, and if it is a WG decision you should be appealing to
the WG chairs first.

I will not ask the IESG to consider your appeal unless
you clarify this.

If you wish to register technical comments about this draft,
please formulate them as a response to the Last Call message,
not as an appeal. They will then be considered on the same
basis as any other Last Call comments.

Brian Carpenter
IETF Chair

Dean Anderson wrote:
> I object to this document on the following grounds:
>
> Objections were made to the DNSOP WG regarding at least 6 problems with the
> document that were not addressed:
>
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html
>
> There may be additional problems.
>
> The notion of a safe stateful anycast operation as asserted by Daniel Karrenberg
> (http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/pdf/karrenberg.pdf) has now been discredited.
> Karrenberg's document misled people to believe that stateful anycast was safe,
> when in fact Karrenberg didn't perform any stateful testing whatsoever.
>
> So, there is no evidence that stateful anycast is safe, and substantial evidence
> that it is not safe: Mark Kosters reports on data gathered at J root:
>
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/pdf/kosters.pdf
>
> + Expected to see a saw tooth distribution .
> instead have a noisy distribution in many cases
> + Does not affect UDP
> + DO NOT RUN Anycast with Stateful Transport
>
> http://www.rssac.org/meetings/04-08/2004WashDC.html
> Kosters repeats warning on stateful DNS Anycast, but is disputed by
> Karrenberg. It is later found (January, 2006) that Karrenberg has done no
> stateful testing whatsoever, and did not reveal that his testing was only for
> stateless DNS, and therefore irrelevant to Kosters data. This discovery was
> only made when Anderson examined the source code to the DNSMON program written
> by Karrenberg to conduct this testing.
>
> Stateful transport includes large UDP ENDSO packets which are required by
> DNSSEC.
>
> The draft-ietf-grow-anycast document incorrectly gives the impression that
> stateful anycast is safe. This is a an incorrect conclusion based on
> discredited research. Therefore this document should not be accepted for
> technical reasons.
>
> DNS Anycast controversy and inappropriate behavior by officials during
> discussion of this document gives rise to questions on both the integrity of the
> document, and questions as to whether all points of views have been adequately
> considered.
>
> To summarize the controvery: During discussion of this document and the subject
> of DNS Anycast and DNS Root Anycast, David Kessens, Area Director for the
> Operations Area which includes DNSOP WG and the GROW WG, attempted to conspire
> with Brian Carpenter, David Crocker, and Susan Harris to improperly silence
> discussion of problems with DNS Anycast [and the same persons also tried to
> improperly silence questions regarding the integrity of an IETF spam document
> authored by Crocker]. Then 4 IESG members acted with conflicts of interest in
> violation of the ISOC and IETF charter and rules to silence discussion of this
> matter. An IAB appeal documents this inappropriate behavior. The IAB has not yet
> ruled on the matter.
>
> For example, during this time, Kessens asserted (incorrectly) that DNS Root
> server operations were off-topic for the DNSOP WG, and then inappropriately
> demanded that discussion of DNS Root Anycast on the DNSOP WG be halted.
> Subsequently, it was proposed that DNSOP WG be re-chartered to remove DNS root
> server operations from its charter. Somewhat strangely, but consistent with
> other absurd allegations, Kessens et al refused to concede that DNS Root Anycast
> was presently on-topic for DNSOP WG. There are other allegations too numerous to
> fully list here. See http://www.iab.org/appeals/index.html "Appeal Against IESG
> PR-Action from Dean Anderson, 18 April 2006" for more information.
>
> As a result, my views have not been adequately presented or considered.
>
> An appeal is therefore registered under Section 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 of RFC 2026.
>
> Dean Anderson
> Av8 Internet, Inc
>
>
>
>
> I have begun to collect a history of DNS Anycast at
> http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/DNSRootAnycast/History.html
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, The IESG wrote:
>
>
>>The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG to
>>consider the following document:
>>
>>- 'Operation of Anycast Services '
>> <draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt> as a BCP
>>
>>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the
>>iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2006-06-16.
>>
>>The file can be obtained via
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-grow-anycast-03.txt
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
>>web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
>>
>>
>
>