Subject: Amended Appeal Re: grow: Last Call: 'Operation of Anycast Services' to BCP (draft-ietf-grow-anycast) (fwd) Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 21:51:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Dean Anderson To: iesg@ietf.org Clarification has been requested by members of the IESG. It seems that it is not clear what decisions are disputed. To address this confusion, the original Appeal is amended to include requests for specific action and proceeding by the IESG. Requested Action: Four actions are specifically requested: ============================================================================ 1) The IESG should annul the decision by David Kessens (Announcement available at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00532.html) to move the draft-ietf-grow-anycast document to "Last Call", and return the document draft-ietf-grow-anycast to the GROW WG with an instruction that this document is part of or based on a scientific fraud. The IETF Datatracker site lists 5 items for the draft-ietf-grow-anycast document on June 1, 2006. Most, if not all of these should be reversed or undone. The item on June 5, 2006 should also be removed or reversed as necessary. Some additional evidence has come to light after a discussion with IESG members. This dicussion can be found on the IESG list, and will be made available at http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/Appeal-draft-ietf-grow-anycast.html In particular, there are a number of discrepancies and false or out-of-context statements in the datatracker document written by Kessens: (document available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_comment&id=51723) Kessens describes Anderson as the only dissenter. But there are other dissenters who agreed with Anderson, and then dropped out of further discussion: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00402.html Kessens describes a solid consensus. But of 7 persons (excluding chairs and authors) participating in the discussion, 2 dissent. One plainly dissents strongly, and indicates 6 unresolved issues. So 28% do not support the document in draft 2. No comment at all is made on draft 3, not even from the chairs. In the meantime, the research supporting stateful anycast is found not to perform stateful testing. Kessens is aware of this fact from the 3/8/06 Appeal. Kessens statement in the datatracker document seems to be an exaggeration if not an affirmative misrepresentation. In light of the charges and evidence presented against Kessens in the Appeal registered 3/8/06 with the IESG for participation in the fraud, this comment cannot be lightly dismissed as benign. In any case, 5 people do not seem to make a "solid consensus" nor constitute adequate consideration for a scheme with such global and far reaching effects as Stateful Anycast, as sought by ISC and RIPE for use on DNS root servers. Kessens asserts that Anderson does not strongly object to this document. In view of the assertions made in the Appeal registered 3/8/06 with the IESG, this statement can only be viewed as an outright lie, or "affirmative misrepresentation". Kessens writes: There was a single dissenting view from Dean Anderson noting a difference in semantic interpretation of 'node selection', differences in capabilities of 'Per-Packet Load Balancing', and differences of view in the potential for TCP failure over parallel diverse paths with Per-Packet Load Balancing. Dean noted that the chairs had judged WG consensus for publication of this document and that he did not dispute that judgment. This is not an honest characterization of Anderson's issues as Anderson describes them in http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00462.html http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00426.html For example, the issue with the term 'node selection' is not one of semantic interpretation, but of a complete fiction of the notion. There is no such notion: Anycast clients cannot select the anycast instance or node. The claim that Anderson noted "the chairs had judged WG consensus" was taken out of context. Anderson was responding to what Huston had previously written: http://www.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/msg00461.html December 1, 2005 Geoff Huston writes: ================================================== I have seen no further working group postings on this draft during this last call period, and no observed working group consensus to create another revision of this draft. ================================================== So, I (Anderson) was under the impression that Huston had made a decision and was not interested in any further discussion, even though I (Anderson) had documented 6 unaddressed problems. But it is clear now that in fact no decision had been made in December, and I (Anderson) was wrong to think it had been. That is not an "admission of decision". On January 27, 2006, another draft was issued, according to the actual group consensus which was to create another draft. Then we found that the assurances given by ISC were false and based on false research. Kessens was aware of this discovery. (See IESG email discussion, made available at http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/Appeal-draft-ietf-grow-anycast.html) 2) The IESG should annul the decision by GROW WG Chair Geoff Huston to assert that the document draft-ietf-grow-anycast was ready for Last Call, as there were 6 un-addressed issues listed by Anderson on December 2, 2005. There is no comment on the new draft that was issued January 27, 2006 to indicate consensus. Also the Chair made an incorrect technical choice, since the subject matter of the document doesn't work, as outlined by Anderson, previously. 3) The IESG should take appropriate action against David Kessens and Brian Carpenter for their roles and multiple acts in perpetrating a scientific fraud of stateful Anycast. 4) The IESG should take appropriate action with respect to other inappropriate or unethical activities that are brought to light as a result of investigation, including unethical or inappropriate attempts to influence or interfere in this or other proceedings. Proceeding: ============================================================================ Brian Carpenter should proceed by recusing himself from this matter, and halting attempts to interfere or influence this proceeding. The IESG should elect a temporary Chair to oversee its proceedings according to is usual process if there is a usual process when the Chair is absent. David Kessens should proceed by recusing himself from this matter, and halting attempts to interfere or influence this proceeding. The IESG should proceed as though Brian Carpenter and David Kessens are absent and should conduct its considerations without interference or influence from Carpenter or Kessens. Evidence of interference or influence should be presented as cause for action. Original Appeal: ============================================================================ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:07:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Dean Anderson 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 ' > 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