JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where
such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, grenville armitage wrote:
Since when have political conspiracy theories,
Political conspiracy theory? The disparagement machine is working overtime.
allusions to impending legal action
I made no allusions. I demanded compliance with the law and performance of
fiduciary
At 13:32 29/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is
the one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF
publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two
standards for the same bits.
Dear Brian,
this is
At 13:32 29/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
They are both published, and obviously the consensus document is the
one on the standards track. It exactly an example of the IETF
publishing a minority opinion. Obviously, we couldn't publish two
standards for the same bits.
Dear Brian,
...
My proposition would be to create a minority position system. Where
such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already.
Please see RFC 3246 and RFC 3248 for an example I was personally
involved
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Anycast in the face of PPLB has been accepted (by most of us, at least)
specifically for the root servers because current queries to the roots do
not need to be fragmented and do not use TCP.
Right. But all DNS in the past (and most in the present)
Dean Anderson wrote:
Right. But all DNS in the past (and most in the present) is small, stateless UDP
packets. RFC1546 Anycast allows PPLB on diverse links. But future DNS will use
large UDP packets, fragments, and more TCP.
That's a big change for something we depending so much on today.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
Anycast has been deployed for four years.
I think it is three years. But it has been controversial from the start.
Any change to the DNS infrastructure
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Any change to the DNS infrastructure that is incompatible
with use of
anycast is not acceptable and will not be deployed.
I don't think you get to make that demand. Or rather, I don't
At 19:17 27/09/2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
...
My proposition would be to create a minority position system.
Where such groups could be accepted as opposing without having to be fighting.
There is a perfectly civilised way of handling minority opinions already.
Please see RFC 3246 and RFC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a lurker, love him or hate him, Dean does evoke responses as varied
as any I've observed. Unfortunately all too often that's the only way
some truth will be allowed to leak out. Or people finally put pieces
together.
this particular cure -- if one lives in a
Behalf Of Stephen Sprunk
Note that I consider it irrelevant
whether his position in this or any past instance turns out to be
correct: it's the form, not the content, of his efforts that
is the problem.
S
That is a perilous line of reasoning indeed. You're saying if I
don't
Thomas Gal wrote:
[..]
I hope that being too
forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent) doesn't
become justification for reprimand.
Since when have political conspiracy theories, allusions to impending
legal action and references to other people's dating lives
Thomas Gal wrote:
[..]
I hope that being too
forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent)
doesn't become justification for reprimand.
Since when have political conspiracy theories, allusions to
impending legal action and references to other people's
Steve writes:
Actually, 3683 specifically requires community discussion of motions to
block someone's posting rights. It is, in so many words, done by a
Last Call.
Steve, I thought that RFC3683 is intended to apply drastic measures
(see intro, page 4).
RFC2418 allows a WG chair and the
) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 2:01 AM
To: Steven M. Bellovin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'IESG'; ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Steve writes:
Actually, 3683 specifically requires community
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an
IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an individual
is disrupting normal WG process.
RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is concise enough to quote the applicable part in
its
Wijnen, Bert (Bert) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I certainly hope that we do not have to have the equivalent of an
IETF Last Call everytime that a WG chair or AD finds that an
individual is disrupting normal WG process.
RFC 3683 (BCP 83) is concise enough to quote the
applicable
The procedures for management of the IETF list are detailed in RFC 3005
(the IETF list charter).
Note that there are presently selected IETF sergeants-at-arms.
Harald
--On 27. september 2005 03:58 -0700 Nick Staff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Could you please specify the RFC
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Nick Staff wrote:
John-
Could you please specify the RFC that details the procedure for when an AD
requests that the IESG remove someone's posting privileges from the IETF
list (the RFC other 3683 of course). If there isn't one then I'd have to
ask that you refrain
Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
I have not been following dnsop discussions, but from this summary, there
is nothing broken beyond your understanding of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Staff writes:
]
] 7.2 Approval to block participant on a WG list (Bert
Wijnen) ] ] This management issue was discussed. The IESG
agrees that Bert ] Wijnen may block posting rights for Dean
Anderson on the dnsops ] mailing list if he refuses to stay
on
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
Anycast has been deployed for four years. Any change to the DNS
infrastructure that is incompatible with use of anycast is not
acceptable and will not be deployed.
Anycast significantly improves the response time
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Without getting into to much detail, Anycast doesn't work with TCP,
| but it also doesn't work with large UDP packets and fragments.
Anycast does not work (or perhaps more correctly, in some circumstances
when there is routing
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:06, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:41:56 -0400 (EDT)
From:Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| It is not DNSSEC that is broken.
I have not been following dnsop discussions, but from this
Thus spake wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anycast does not work (or perhaps more correctly, in some
circumstances when there is routing instability, will not work) with
fragmented UDP packets (the size of the packets is irrelevant, only
]
To: ietf@ietf.org; wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:09:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [dnsop] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list]
Thus spake wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Elz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Anycast does not work (or perhaps more correctly
C.M. - One of us has horribly missed the point of John's email (I'm not
inferring it's you). Whichever one of us it is, the good news is I think we
actually agree with each other =)
The passage you quoted was indeed quoted by John but the way I read his post
was that he was quoting it to show
Nicholas Staff wrote:
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I consider
Dean Anderson's emails, in aggregate, abusive. They consume precious
mental bandwidth, in many cases with no material technical
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nicholas Staff wrote:
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the
DNSOP list.
--
Without getting into the discussion of whether an email every 5 days is a
DOS I would certainly like to state for the record that without question the
pettiness has taken far more thought than the productivity, and so if Dean's
posts are a DOS then the posts trying to protect us from them have
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Bray
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I consider
Dean Anderson's emails, in aggregate, abusive. They
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
No, but on the other hand WGs, the IESG and the IETF as a whole are fully
entitled to defend themselves against denial of service attacks.
There have been only 2 denial of service attacks:
1) When Dan Bernstein's subscription address was posted
First, remember that Bill Strahm is a working group chair who doesn't believe he
has to either 1) interact with IETF participants, or 2) not defame IETF
participants in his official duties. He thinks its perfectly OK for Rob Austein
of ISC to use his IETF position to defame Av8 Internet:
On Fri,
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tim Bray
On Sep 24, 2005, at 8:28 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
None of my emails have been abusive.
Speaking as a 99.% passive observer around here, I
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Crocker writes:
Without getting into the discussion of whether an email every 5 days is a
DOS I would certainly like to state for the record that without question the
pettiness has taken far more thought than the productivity, and so if Dean's
posts are a DOS
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Crocker writes:
Without getting into the discussion of whether an email
every 5 days
is a DOS I would certainly like to state for the record
that without
question the pettiness has taken far more thought than the
productivity, and so if Dean's
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700
From:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
criticism of mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP
list.
--
-- Forwarded
Nicholas,
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 05:46:33PM -0700, Nicholas Staff wrote:
David, the way it reads to me is you warned Dean you would go to the
IESG if he continued what you felt were abusive posts.
I first sent a message on the dnsop mail list that most people would
interpret as a clear
I hope that we can discuss this as soon as possible. Until then, I
will try to refrain from sending any more messages on this topic as I
don't believe that this will be productive. People on this mail list
might want to consider to do the same thing.
Thanks,
David Kessens
Operations
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nicholas Staff writes:
I hope that we can discuss this as soon as possible. Until then, I
will try to refrain from sending any more messages on this topic as I
don't believe that this will be productive. People on this mail list
might want to consider to do the
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant
criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:55:20 -0700
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
I'm sorry, David's note wasn't an attack -- it was David excercising
his responsibility as an AD. Have a look at Section 2 of RFC 3683 --
to revoke someone's posting rights, he *must* make a public statement
on the IETF mailing list.
Kessens
---
- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:08:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
-- Forwarded
PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Mismanagement of the DNSOP list
FYI: I am being threatened for posting operationally relevant criticism of
mis-operation of the F DNS Root server on the DNSOP list.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster
48 matches
Mail list logo
