It has been a week since this appeal was made, yet it does not appear on the
IESG appeals page. What is the delay?

Is it the case that Brian Carpenter (named in the appeal) has acted unethically
to refuse consideration, as he threatened? If so, that is an IESG act that
should be recorded on the IESG Appeals site.

Thank you,

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: grow@lists.uoregon.edu
Subject: Appeal Re: grow: Last Call: 'Operation of Anycast Services' to BCP
(draft-ietf-grow-anycast)

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