From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc(_at_)zurich(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com]
Nicholas Staff wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com> -----
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: David Kessens <david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com>
To: Dean Anderson <dean(_at_)av8(_dot_)com>
Cc: David Meyer <dmm(_at_)1-4-5(_dot_)net>, Rob Austein
<sra(_at_)hactrn(_dot_)net>,
Bert Wijnen <bwijnen(_at_)lucent(_dot_)com>
Subject: [david(_dot_)kessens(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com: Re: [dnsop] An attack
that DNSSEC
would
have defended against...]
Dean,
To avoid any misunderstandings: My message is an official
warning to
you that I will propose to the IESG to remove your posting
privileges
if I see one more abusive mail from you.
Thanks,
David Kessens
---
Since I have been informed that this actually is the forum for this
discussion according to RFC 3683 I will ask for a
clarification from
David on this whole thing.
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.
Dean in turn
informed the IESG of your warning because he felt it was
unwarranted
and being used by you as a tool to silence someone who had
a differing
technical opinion. You then used his complaint to the IESG as an
instance of another abusive post and requested to have his
privileges removed. Is that basically correct?
If so are you telling me that I have to be afraid of ever voicing a
complaint or problem to the IESG because an AD can use that as a
reason for retribution? This to me transcends Dean and
whether or not
his posts are abusive - I'd like to know (maybe someone
else has the
answer) if I can be penalized for lodging a complaint with the IESG.
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. If someone persistently sends off-topic
mail over a long period, or mail making acccusations that are
clearly outside the IETF's scope, or simply repetitions of
the same point over and over, that is in effect a DoS and
that is why we have RFC 3683.
And to be very clear, if two parties are at odds outside the
IETF, that must stay outside the IETF. Inside the IETF (i.e.
on our mailing lists and at our meetings) there is no place
for external disputes.
WG Chairs, the Area Directors, and the IESG do have authority here.
Brian
Brian,
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass (though I don't doubt I've become
one), but it's not that I don't agree with what you're saying - heck not
only is it the IESG's right but I think it's their duty to defend themselves
and the IETF from such attacks. What I can't wrap my head around is the
logic that connects it to Dean. Here is the data that's giving me a
problem:
In the last six months approximately 65%-75% of email generated by or about
Dean to this list have been in response to messages that complained about
the relevancy of his comments. In fact roughly 20% of all mail this list
has received either by or relating to Dean has been from this thread alone.
If you remove those messages from the count then over the last six months
Dean averages around one email every 4-6 days. (all figures are rough
"at-a-glance" calculations as opposed to pen and paper).
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 been an
atom bomb.
thanks,
nick
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf