> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brc@zurich.ibm.com] 
> Nicholas Staff wrote:
> >>----- Forwarded message from Dean Anderson <dean@av8.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.kessens@nokia.com>
> >>To: Dean Anderson <dean@av8.com>
> >>Cc: David Meyer <dmm@1-4-5.net>, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>,
> >>     Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
> >>Subject: [david.kessens@nokia.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@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf