Subject: Re: Possible RFC 3683 PR-action

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:41:08 +0200

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 08:45:19AM -0700,
 Christian Huitema <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 12 lines which said:

> Does the IETF have a policy regarding misrepresented identities?

For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10 of RFC
5242 may be actually the same person who is the target of a PR-action,
with just a small modification of his name. If this is true, he cannot
post on IETF mailing lists and should be banned of "Acknowledgments"
sections as well!

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

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 23:45:04 +0200

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> If this is true, he cannot post on IETF mailing lists and
> should be banned of "Acknowledgments" sections as well!

The IESG Note in RFC 5242 is perfectly clear, with a length
of 11 lines it reaches a third of the IESG Note size used
in RFCs 4405, 4407, 4407, and 4408.  For a shorter IESG Note
I'd support an appeal or recall petition, but 11 lines ought
to be good enough for everybody.  

It would be completely unjustfied to count empty lines, and
then claim that 12 of 38 is less than a third, even if the
38 lines don't include a page header added by the RFC-editor
without consent of the IESG, let alone any IETF Last Call.

 Frank

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:43:46 +1300

> post on IETF mailing lists and should be banned of "Acknowledgments"

Do you believe that 'f' is isomorfic with 'ph'?

   Brian

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:09:31 +0200

> post on IETF mailing lists and should be banned of "Acknowledgments"
No, this needs an RFC 3683 update - the RFC mentions acknowledgements 
only in the title of its acknowledgements section; steps need to be 
taken at once to rectify this severely overlooked issue.

We can't have people mounting denial of service attacks against the IETF 
by being mentioned in acknowledgements section - that would be Just Too 
Impolite!

                 Harald

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:22:52 -0400

--On Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:09 AM +0200 Harald Tveit 
Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> For instance, I claim that the person mentioned in section 10
>> of RFC 5242 may be actually the same person who is the target
>> of a PR-action, with just a small modification of his name.
> No, this needs an RFC 3683 update - the RFC mentions
> acknowledgements  only in the title of its acknowledgements
> section; steps need to be  taken at once to rectify this
> severely overlooked issue.
>
> We can't have people mounting denial of service attacks
> against the IETF  by being mentioned in acknowledgements
> section - that would be Just Too  Impolite!

Of course, this would contradict the requirements of various 
other documents that the acknowledgements contain a full 
description of everyone who contributed substantively.  So those 
documents would all need to be updated to make appropriate 
exceptions.

   john

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:42:58 -0400 (EDT)

As one of the 2 PR-action'ed persons, let me respond to these 
assertions.

I was subject of a PR-Action in fall of 2005 because I did three things:

1) I asked for honesty in the sources of claims in the controverial 
spamops document.  The discredited source was SORBS, which falsely 
claims address blocks used by Av8 Internet (130.105/16 and 198.3.136/21) 
are hijacked. They have done this since 2003, and know of the mistake. 
SORBS is connected to Paul Vixie and Dave Rand.

2) I asserted that RFC 3979 applied to DNS drafts, which had not made
the proper disclosures required under RFC3979. Steven Bellovin (then
chair of the IPR Working Group falsely stated that RFC3979 wasn't the
policy of the IETF. ISOC Atty Contreras later refuted Bellovin's false
claim. I was right. The drafts have not made the proper disclosures.  
This activity is similar to the deception by Russ Housley with the
TLS-AUTHZ document. (Housley also voted on my PR-Action)

3) I attempted to discuss problems with Stateful Anycast Stability on
DNSOP. Even though DNSOP was the proper forum for this discussion, I was
bluntly told to drop the subject by then Area Director David Kessens.  
Kessens was associated with Paul Vixie and ISC through several
connections. Vixie was advocating Anycast, and stood to lose money if
problems were revealed. Since then, experimental data confirms the 
problems with Stateful Anycast.

I've been vindicated on all three issues of the PR-Action. There was no 
misconduct on my part.

Since then, I have been banned from the GROW, IPR, and DNSEXT Working 
Groups:

-- I was banned from GROW for opposing draft-ietf-grow-anycast (Kessens)  
that implied that stateful anycast was stable, and stated that per
packet load balancing (PPLB) was pathological.  My opposition was steam
rolled. As Sam Hartman wrote in his evaluation record:

  I believe that the IESG did not follow a process consistent with how
  we handle other documents and that the divergences from our normal
  process created an unacceptably closed process.  As such, I am
  abstaining on this document as I cannot support its publication under
  the process that was used.

  The area director described the process used as "hard ball."  He said
  that because of the history of the document he was pushing back
  against changes both from the IESG and late last call comments more so
  than usual.  By history, I suspect that he meant both the fact that
  this document has already been subject to an appeal and the fact that
  the document has been under development for a long time.  I think that
  the area director chose to play hard enough ball that the process can
  no longer be considered open and that the IESG erred in supporting
  this process and approving the document.

-- I was banned from IPR Working group. I am president of the LPF, an
anti-patent organization founded by Richard Stallman. The LPF represents
the views of many GNU supporters and many famous people in computer
science.  I was banned for working to fix the problems that enabled Russ
Housley to deceive the IETF on IPR disclosure, yet receive no penalty.

-- I was banned from the DNSEXT Working Group (namedroppers) which I
have participated in since about 1990.  I was banned because I opposed
the author assigned to a revived axfr-clarify draft. This draft was
involved in a prior scam by Paul Vixie et al 'clarifying' the AXFR
protocol in 2002.  The draft proponents claimed the draft had no wire
protocol changes. However, it was discovered by Dr. Bernstein that the
draft did include protocol changes. It was also discovered that BIND had
already implemented changed protocol with detection for the old
protocol. This scam was discovered and originally opposed by Dr. Dan
Bernstein, the author of a major DNS server implementation. In 2002,
Bernstein's email was blocked, subjected to forged unsubscriptions, etc.  
The draft was dead until recently, when Vixie and affiliates revived the
document.  I objected to assigning the document to authors affiliated
with the previous abuse of Bernstein.

None of these represent any sort of obstruction to legitimate work.

Paul Vixie seems to be the center of the abuse against me, using his
resources at NANOG, ISOC, and ARIN, and SORBS to interfere with my
business and to promote his own economic interests. Others also have
economic motives to harm me (e.g. Housley to prevent his being held
accountable for patent disclosure violations.)

These efforts at improper and unjustifiable censorship are presently the
subject of legal contacts between my lawyer and their lawyers. These
efforts to censor persons for economic purposes contradict the bylaws
and charters of each of the organizations, and violate US laws.  It will
not stand. SORBS operator Matthew Sullivan has stated his intent to
cause AV8 Internet to spend money to sue people who would lose but have
no money to pay damages.

But I do agree that the efforts at censorship are indeed a waste of
time.  However, the persons wasting our time are the person's who are
abusing the process of censorship for their own financial gain. Their 
purposes have nothing to do with getting work done. It has to do with 
getting money they shouldn't get.

		--Dean

On 25 Mar 2008, John Levine wrote:

> >o how widespread, and how frequent, a problem this is,
> 
> In terms of the number of people, it's tiny.  I can only think of
> three incorrigibly abusive people that bother the IETF, and even if I
> polled everyone here to name candidates, I doubt that I'd run out of
> fingers.
> 
> On the other hand, the amount of time that they waste is enormous,
> because they abuse processes designed to deal with people whose
> misbehavior is ambiguous and temporary, which theirs is not.  If
> someone doesn't get the hint to behave after one or two taps on the
> wrist, they'll never get it and it's a waste of time to keep grinding
> through processes to re-re-re-eject them.  In view of the fact that
> the same people come back to annoy us year after year after year, we
> really need efficient ways to make them go away permanently.  I also
> observe that they tend to have, ah, characteristic writing styles that
> makes it rather easy to recognize when they've grown another
> personality.
> 
> So rather than inventing yet more complex rules, I would be inclined
> to have a much simpler rule that says that if a group's leader sees
> mail from someone who is obviously You Know Who or You Know Who Else
> already subject to 3683, just block it and send out a one sentence
> notice reporting it.  Then return to useful work.
> 
> Regards,
> Glenn Curtiss

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