Subject: RE: grow: WGLC for Operation of Anycast Services (draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt) (fwd)

From: "Paul Francis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:40:09 -0400

Well, I was copying grow cause I'm sure that they are as interested as I am
to get your data and concise summary of your arguments.  But I'm happy to
leave them off (after this email).  After our back-and-forth, we can
summarize our findings for them.

PF

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, September 24, 2006 11:52 PM
To: Paul Francis
Cc: Hitesh Ballani; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: grow: WGLC for Operation of Anycast Services
(draft-ietf-grow-anycast-04.txt) (fwd)

It is unclear to me why you keep adding the GROW WG list to your responses.
Our discussion seems to have little to do with any current business of the
GROW WG.  The GROW WG has approved a document which was previously rejected
by the DNSOP WG because people realized that stateful Anycast was impossible.
[see discussion relating to the draft-ietf-dnsop-serverid document on DNSOP,
and draft-ietf-dnsext-nsid on DNSEXT.] By contrast, the GROW WG had very
little participation, and made the approval on very shaky grounds, with only
9 participants, including myself. The other people involved were all
associated with, or directly financially interested in, DNS Anycast and
seeing the proposed BCP move forward.  They have virtually nothing to lose
from promoting fake DNS Anycast technology, and stand to gain a lot of money,
at least until we begin to use Stateful DNS.  But the GROW WG is done with
the discussion, and the dispute is now at another level.

Inline

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, Paul Francis wrote:

> BTW, I'm in no way convinced that our paper is wrong, so of course 
> won't retract the paper.  I was wondering if your results would change 
> my conviction, but until I see your results of course I can't change my
mind.

The discussion I'm forwarding to you is to show the prior discussion of load
balancing and perhaps some other issues that your paper discusses.  
This particular dispute doesn't prove your paper wrong, but is rather that
you didn't properly credit the load balancing analysis and other issues,
including the "node selection"

The false claims in your paper have already been described to you in
sufficient detail for you to act.  But I suggest that you should review the
archives of the GROW WG, particularly my messages.  Your claims of "affinity"
have been previously discredited, as you should know---being aware of the
controversy and even noting the controversy slightly in your paper.

Your paper contains misleading terms and misleading use of statistical data
to demonstrate false results.  Your paper's arguments for affinity are an
experimental fallacy---a fact of which you are aware, or should have known.
The circumstances put your mistakes beyond an honest
mistake: You were aware of the controversy, and made inexcusably misleading
claims to report false results. Falsification of results is scientific fraud.

> Actually, this should be something of an opportunity for you.  You can 
> publish your results in IMC or some other conference next year and 
> overturn previous results (indeed, you'd be overturning the best paper 
> award paper!) which would create quite a buzz.

What you've done is an knowingly commit scientific fraud. My approach to your
paper will be to contact Cornell and the National Science Foundation.  There
is little in the paper's amazing claims that is original.  Even the
fraudulent claims were invented by someone else, whom you also didn't credit.

I haven't heard of your paper's award, but your Stateful Anycast results are
indeed quite amazing. If true, they would be nothing short of revolutionary.
Stateful Anycast: Imagine!  I have no doubt that such amazing claims generate
a lot of excitement. Its just too bad that the amazing claims aren't true.

"There is a rule of logic that states that any conclusion whatsoever can be
obtained from a false statement." 
[Mathematical Paradoxes and Fallacies, Bunch (1982), pg 16]

One should you look for the fallacy when things are too good to be true.  
In fact, you did look; and you did find the controversy; and then you ignored
the controvery; and then you used misleading descriptions and analysis to
report false results.

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

_________________________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow.html
web archive:        http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/grow/

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 14:59:32 -0400 (EDT)

I think possibly you may misunderstand the interest of the GROW WG in
this matter.  The GROW WG document has been itself disputed for being
misleading and false (though not itself research), and being based on on
scientific fraud by Daniel Karrenberg. Karrenberg's document is
research.

I have no doubt that the draft proponents were hoping your research
would credit the draft, which is why Hitesh was asked to comment on
whether he thought the draft-ietf-grow-anycast document was misleading.

However, summarizing our discussion will be irrelevant to the business
of GROW WG, since its document is already out of its hands, and is being
disputed for being based on discredited research, and for itself being
misleading.  Our discussion may be relevant to the ISOC Board of
Trustees, Cornell, the ACM, and the National Science Foundation and
other authorities.  However, the GROW WG is not an authority on
scientific fraud.

Since your data does not support your results, your results are
falsified.  You had notice of this dispute before your published your
results, so there is no chance of honest mistake.  So, your research
claim is also fraudulent.  Since other research claim is likewise
fraudulent, neither document seems to help them prove that the
draft-ietf-grow-anycast document isn't misleading.

Like your document, they have also falsely claimed an "affinity", though
they used the term "node selection". There is no basis for this
conclusion in your data or in Karrenberg's data.

		--Dean

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:25:01 +1000

Mr Anderson,

On the 20th September I informed you through a final warning that any 
further postings from yourself that included personal attacks or 
attempts to disrupt the working group's activities would result in 
the immediate suspension of your posting rights to the GROW mailing list.

I note that your posting to the GROW WG mailing list (copied below) 
includes accusations of fraud directed at Mr Karrenberg and 
accusations of fraud and falsification of data directed at Mr 
Francis. Differences of opinion are one thing, but when such 
differences are expressed in the form of personal attack then they 
have no role on this mailing list.

Lucy, please remove Mr Anderson's posting rights to the GROW WG mailing list.

David, please note this WG Chair action with respect to Mr Anderson.

Geoff Huston
    GROW WG Chair