Subject: Re: Appeal Re: grow: Last Call: 'Operation of Anycast Services' to BCP (draft-ietf-grow-anycast)

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:22:22 -0400 (EDT)

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
> >>[email-masked] or [email-masked] 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/

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:34:50 +1000

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.

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."

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

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

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:19:27 -0400 (EDT)

I agree that the Working Group has already submitted the document to the IESG
for approval, and therefore it is too late to ask the WG Chair to withdraw the
document, given its forwarding to the IESG.  This is why the appeal was made to
the IESG.  It is not too late to appeal to the IESG regarding its decision. Nor
is it too late to raise a working group dispute to the IESG.

However, the document in question on December 2, 2005 was draft 2 of the anycast
document. That draft was not sent to the IESG, nor finally approved by the WG,
even though I conceded that draft 2 might have been sent to the IESG. But draft
2 was not approved.  Rather, it is now __draft_3__ that is now under discussion.  
Thus there are no process clocks dependent on the December 2, 2005 date.  Your
argument that more than 2 months has passed is invalid.

In fact, there has only been one posting of draft 3 on the working group on
January 27, 2006, with no further discussion, nor even a Chair announcement that
it would be sent to the IESG.  It seems premature to pass this draft to the the
IESG without notifying the WG. However, that has been done.  Whether this is
also a process failure is insignificant in light of the other problems. 

In my view at least, the Area Director for the Operations Group has acted
inappropriately on this matter by: 1) apparently not informing the WG Chairs of
the problems involving this document. The AD (Kessens) and the IESG were
notified of these problems in March, 2006.  2) Allowing or encouraging the IESG
to proceed with approving this document given its known problems.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:51:15 -0400 (EDT)

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

> decision or action of the IESG.

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

> 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