On second look, there are some more questions in here, than I answered. I'll try
to address these additional questions in line.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2006, Geoff Huston wrote:

> Dean,
>
> It is unclear to me from your text below whether you are formally appealing
> a decision of the working group relating to the consensus call arising from
> the last call of this document, or whether you are appealing a subsequent
> decision or action of the Area Director, David Kessens, or some other
> decision or action of the IESG.

There are multiple problems. And new ones that have arisen since the first
appeal, even.

> I note that in this thread of messages the Chair of the IETF, Brian
> Carpenter, has made the comment that " if it is a WG decision you should be
> appealing to the WG chairs first."

Carpenter's action as chair was already noted to be unethical, since he can't
decide a case where he is a named in the dispute. So his (Carpenter's) comment
is inoperative, unless Carpenter really insists on taking a blatantly unethical
position, which would seem to be grounds for immediate dismissal.

The WG decision has apparently already been forwarded to the IESG, before the WG
was notified of Last Call, so I believe that process could be disputed, as well,
but I think its moot.

But let me get this straight: It is your view that this document, tainted as it
is, can't be disputed because a (failed) WG Last Call was made in December, and
therefore should be approved even though it is based on scientific fraud? If so,
that's quite remarkable, I think. I would rather anticipate that you would be
embarrassed, having been so duped by fraud. Instead, you want to move forward
with a fraud?!? I think that's strange. Are you sure that's the position you
want to take? I must have misunderstood you. Please clarify.

--Dean

> Here I will limit my response here to address strictly the interpretation
> of your note that you are formally appealing a WG decision to the Working
> Group chair.
>
> The procedural basis of my response is drawn from RFC 2026
>
> 6.5.1 Working Group Disputes
>
> [...]
>
> A person who disagrees with a Working Group recommendation shall
> always first discuss the matter with the Working Group's chair(s),
> who may involve other members of the Working Group (or the Working
> Group as a whole) in the discussion.
>
> I have used the following considerations in reviewing your appeal
>
> 1. If you are appealing a decision of the GROW WG chairs in declaring a
> working group rough consensus to advance the document to the IESG for
> publication as a BCP in December of 2005, then I note from RFC2026:
>
> 6.5.4 Appeals Procedure
>
> All appeals must include a detailed and specific description of the
> facts of the dispute.
>
> All appeals must be initiated within two months of the public
> knowledge of the action or decision to be challenged.
>
> I note that more than 2 months have elapsed since this decision was taken
> in the context of the Working Group and the chairs' judgement of WG
> consensus with the Working Group Last Call of this document to be passed to
> the IESG with a recommendation for publication as a BCP.
>
> 2. I note from your posting to the working on the 2nd December 2005
> (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html) that you indicated
> to the working group that " But the Chairs see a consensus, and I'm not
> disputing their judgement."
>
> 3. The working group last call
> (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00424.html,
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00429.html)
> and the working group postings during the last call:
>
> <http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html
> http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00427.html
> <http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00428.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00428.html
> http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00430.html
> <http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00431.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00431.html
> http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00432.html
> <http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00433.html>http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00433.html
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00449.html
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00460.html
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00461.html
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html
> http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00463.html
>
> Indicate that while you had a difference of opinion with parts of the
> document, there was a general level of support for the document moving
> forward and that there were no other working group members who supported
> your stated position.
>
> On that basis I conclude that the working group last call was conducted
> appropriately and the judgement call by the chairs of rough consensus to
> proceed with a publication request was made in good faith and according to
> the overall desires of the working group as a whole.
>
> I therefore conclude from these considerations that if your note represents
> a formal appeal of a working group chair decision made in December 2005,
> then, on the grounds that
>
> (a) more than 2 months have elapsed since this action was taken by the
> working group chairs,
>
> (b) at the time you indicated to the working group that you were not
> disputing this chairs' call of consensus over the last call of the document
> to proceed to the IESG for publication review, and
>
> (c) that the Working Group Last call was conducted in an appropriate manner
> on the working group mailing list,
>
> I see no basis for further action to be taken by the working group chair or
> the working group in connection with the judgement of working group
> consensus over the last call of this document and the passing of the
> document to the IESG for publication review.
>
> On the basis that you are appealing a Working Group action to the Working
> Group chair, then, as Working Group chair, I see no grounds to sustain the
> appeal, and formally advise you that your appeal to the Working Group Chair
> is dismissed.
>
> regards,
>
> Geoff Huston
>
> GROW WG Chair
>
>
> cc: group working group mailing list,
> O&M Area Director David Kessens,
> IETF Chair, Brian Carpenter
> IESG
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> At 07:22 AM 6/06/2006, Dean Anderson wrote:
> >Inline.
> >
> >On Sat, 3 Jun 2006, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >
> > > Dean,
> > >
> > > Can you please state what decision you are appealing against?
> >
> >I am appealing the Last Call, as should be plain from the text of my
> >message.
> >This is a working group dispute, and a process dispute, as documented in the
> >text of my message.
> >
> > > 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 think the WG chairs are already aware of this. Moreover, David Kessens, the
> >Area Director for the Operations Area, is already aware of the fraud due
> >to his
> >prior involvement with the PR-Action Appeal. I note that Mr. Kessens already
> >stands accused of impropriety and personal involvement in the matter of the
> >scientific fraud. As does Mr. Carpenter.
> >
> > > I will not ask the IESG to consider your appeal unless you clarify this.
> >
> >I think that since Mr. Carpenter is also accused of impropriety on this
> >matter,
> >that Mr. Carpenter should recuse himself on this matter. Mr. Carpenter's
> >present intervention on charges of his own misconduct is further unethical
> >conduct.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >Such comments, as necessary to establish that a scientific fraud is involved,
> >have now been made. As the IESG can also see, Mr. Kessens has already (again)
> >made false and frivolous accusations of "disruption", despite the unethical
> >nature and established conflict of interest of his doing so. I think if there
> >were any question before regarding the ethics and impropriety of his
> >involvement, all doubt has now been erased. I ask the IESG to act
> >accordingly.
> >
> >Dean Anderson
> >Av8 Internet, Inc
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >--
> >Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> >www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> >617 344 9000
> >
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
> >web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/
>
>
>
>

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

_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/