Subject: Re: nsid last call

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:50:49 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Olaf M. Kolkman wrote:
> Dear Dean,
> 
> You wrote:
> > Umm it seems that the language for "as long as the content ... over  
> > a series of
> > queries" is not included in the new draft -02.
> >
> > "_not_ removing" seems to mean that it should be included. Right?
> >
> > Was this a mistake? Or did I miss something?
> 
> 
> I made the mistake of using double negations in
>    "I have not seen a clear consensus building for '_not_ removing"...
> 
> I should have used  "There is consensus to remove text that requires  
> the NSID content to remain constant over a series of queries". I  
> agree that this formulation, and earlier use of triple negations, may  
> have caused confusion.
> 
> But, there was no mistake in determining the rough consensus.

It seems difficult to assert that while several people including the
Chair, can be confused and confusing, that consensus is still correctly
achieved amid such confusion.

> I think that I clearly indicated the guiding principle with "a one
> person call in favor for identifying the any cast instances over a
> series of queries is not sufficient to overhaul an issue that was
> brought up pre-last call". (See [1] and reference therein for the pre-
> last call technical argument for not keeping NSID constant over a
> series of queries).

Well, since I didn't prompt the change you posted on June 13, nor the
subsequent discussion of changing this text, (I almost missed it
entirely), there are, at the very least, 2 people who agree with
identifying anycast instances over a series of queries.  So it cannot be
a "one person call"  At the very minimum, it is a 2 person call.  I
think perhaps it is even larger.

Matt Larson can accept either version, but seems to prefer slightly my
version. Quoting Koch's text, he says he can accept it, but prefers the
original text (which I think means my text).

Alex Bligh agrees that the spoofing provision does not need to be in the
standard.  But also doesn't see it necessary to remove.

William Leibzon is also not convinced by the DOS argument, and asks for
the DOS attack to be better explained and added to the Security
Considerations section.

John Dickinson seems to agree with Peter Koch, but notes that spoofing
is a policy decision that has nothing to do with the protocol. It seems
he could be happy without it in the standard.

And it was my impression that you (Olaf Kolkman) agreed it should not be
in the standard, though perhaps your mind was changed...

And of course, I (Dean Anderson) strongly object to the spoofing text.

Strongly for spoofing:
Peter Koch
Ed Lewis
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

No one else posted on the subject.

> The determination of rough consensus and the instructions to the
> editor were in line with this guiding principle.

There seems to be confusion on all sides, so I don't assert that you did
anything _intentionally_ wrong on the consensus. But I think it was
still wrong, though innocently so. [As I've recently asserted some
not-innocently wrong claims of consensus in complaint to the IESG, I
think it is important to state a distinction between in an innocent
mistake and a not-innocent mistake.] I believe this is an innocent
mistake on your part, but a mistake.

> My sincere apologies for the confusion this may have caused. In the  
> future I will try to prevent use multiple negations in last calls and  
> consensus summaries.

Thank you very much.

> 
> 
> --Olaf
> 
> [1] http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2006/msg00737.html
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Olaf M. Kolkman
> NLnet Labs
> http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: "Olaf M. Kolkman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:11:54 +0200

Dear Dean,

Thanks for you reply. I acknowledge receiving your concerns. I think  
that my last message explained the leading principle in determining  
the rough consensus and I stand by that consensus determination.

--Olaf

---

From: Alex Bligh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:34:23 +0100

> standard.  But also doesn't see it necessary to remove.

What I said (well what I meant to say) is that I do not think there
should be a prohibition on opaque NSID (i.e. I am in favour of removing
the prohibition), but I do not think the ability to use them needs to
be expressly authorised in the standard (I'm not objecting to it
doing so per se, I just think its otiose and I understand the argument
that we shouldn't be seen to encourage it).

Alex

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 12:00:43 -0400

At 18:50 -0400 6/27/06, Dean Anderson wrote:

>Strongly for spoofing:

s/for/for allowing/

>Ed Lewis

My assessment is that spoofing (as you are using the term) is neither 
an obstacle nor a requirement to achieve interoperability.
-- 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis                                                +1-571-434-5468
NeuStar

Soccer/Futbol. IPv6.  Both have lots of 1's and 0's and have a hard time
catching on in North America.

That tournament in Germany.  What's all the fuss?  (Get it? "fuss?")

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 14:38:50 -0400

> Strongly for spoofing:
[. . .]
> Andrew Sullivan

To be clear, I am not "for spoofing".  I think I've said enough on
the topic, however, so I won't re-hash my arguments here.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[email-masked]>                              M2P 2A8
jabber: [email-masked]                 +1 416 646 3304 x4110