Subject: Re: axfr-clarify on the move again

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:52:57 -0500

Without regard to the specific issue, but rather in response to the attack 
tone the author has taken (on this and other occasions), I bring up some 
points to clarify where we are at. Though the author below is hostile in 
his remarks, the broader question is whether he (or those he accuses) are 
representing, misrepresenting or following the IETF procedures.

Regardless, I have limited the scope of this mailing to IESG and DNSEXT, 
since the rest of the IETF community need not be a party to this.

At 02:02 PM 11/19/2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
>Reckhard, Tobias writes:
> > The latter page says, "This Internet-Draft was not published as an RFC."
>
>Right. The BIND company is trying to get this ``clarification''
>published as a ``Proposed Standard'' RFC.
>
>These decisions are supposed to be made by working-group consensus, then
>reviewed by the IESG. The DNSEXT chairs have sent this document to the
>IESG, claiming that the document has DNSEXT consensus.

ROUGH consensus. [RFC 2418, Section 3 introduction]

>In fact, at the last DNSEXT meeting, the working group decided _against_
>publishing this document.

Working group sessions are places to accelerate discussion and try to reach 
consensus on ideas which should then be brought back to the mailing list to 
ensure the wider audience has the opportunity to participate. [RFC 2418, 
Section 3.2]

>  (``Too BIND-specific,'' the minutes say.) The
>only discussions since then have been secret discussions between the
>BIND company and the DNSEXT chairs. (The chairs let slip on 2002.08.19
>that they were acting on the basis of behind-the-scenes discussions.)
>
>In legitimate standards organizations, there's no way for anyone to
>misrepresent the will of the group. All actions are confirmed by votes.

If you dislike the procedures, leave. If you think the procedures have not 
been followed, follow the proper motions for that.

>In contrast, in the IETF, chairs have tremendous power to promote their
>favorite documents. They can declare ``consensus'' whenever they want.
>A tremendous burden is then placed on people who object, even if those
>people are the majority of the working group!

Since you've chosen to represent your view as the being the "majority" of 
the working group, I would insist you qualify that by quantifying how many 
people are in the working group, and how you came to believe you had a 
majority behind you.

--
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: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 06:34:10 -0800

> P.S. Randy Bush has been discarding my messages to namedroppers again.

false.  namedroppers allows posts from subscribers.  [email-masked] is
not one.  when messages from non-subscribers arrive for approval,
then, if i see them, i approve them.  but, as the warning i put on
says

[ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
  miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]

randy

---

From: Bruce Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:03:59 +0100 (CET)

[ Was Re: axfr-clarify on the move again ]
[ excessive lists removed from cc line. ]

On 20 Nov 2002, D. J. Bernstein wrote:

> Randy Bush writes:
> > it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts
>
> You have been repeatedly informed that there are newsgroup readers,
> sublist readers, readers with private subscription addresses, etc.---
> but you don't fix your software, you don't turn the list over to someone
> competent, and you don't even take responsibility for your mistakes.

I think you've confused the namedroppers list with the majordomo users
list for starters.  To address your particular points (as relevant to
the namedroppers mailing list management) :

> You have been repeatedly informed that there are newsgroup readers,
> sublist readers, readers with private subscription addresses, etc.---

 *	If you are subscribed to a mailing list as a particular address,
	the common-sense thing to do is to either post using that address,
	or have your common posting address added to the approved posters
	sublist (eg listname-post )

	As namedroppers, like _most_ of the IETF-related mailing lists,
	indeed, _most_ mailing lists, is not configured with a separate
	-post list, you can either post using your subscribed address just
	like everyone else does and have your message delivered to all
	subscribers, or you can take your chances at being noticed by the
	moderators in amongst the spam messages, (f)lemmings etc.

> but you don't fix your software,

 *	Randy has been known to fix majordomo-related problems in response
	to polite requests regarding that being sent to himself (or
	rather, to owner-namdroppers, as per the welcome message that
	you've naturally saved), based on personal experience.

	However, if your issue is 'the namedroppers does not accept posts
	from non-subscribed addresses', then the software is functioning
	as expected.  If you wish to have a different behaviour, then
	stating the behaviour that you are after is far, far better than
	saying over and over that something is broken without stating how
	it is broken (as you have done).

> you don't turn the list over to someone competent,

 *	In terms of mailing list management, namedroppers works.  A shade
	slow for my tastes at times (for instance, I don't expect Randy to
	deal with things whilst he is flying), but it does work provided
	you keep within its known limits.

> and you don't even take responsibility for your mistakes.

 *	In Randy's installing majordomo, or in occasionally not sifting
	out posts from non-subscribers from the spam?  These things
	happen (I personally find it better to put a tag 'posts may vanish
	if you are not a subscriber' tag on my own mailing lists).  You
	seem to be the only one publically having these problems, and it
	seems to be because you want to be Right, without the possibility
	of other arguments being entered into.

Regards,

-- 
                             Bruce Campbell                            RIPE
                   Systems/Network Engineer                             NCC
                 www.ripe.net - PGP562C8B1B             Operations/Security

---

From: "D. J. Bernstein" <[email-masked]>
Date: 20 Nov 2002 20:21:22 -0000

> it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts

Funny how this happens so often for people you disagree with. Several
incidents are documented in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html.

---D. J. Bernstein, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics,
Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago

---

From: Greg Black <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:15:17 +1000

"D. J. Bernstein" wrote:

| [ post by non-subscriber.  with the massive amount of spam, it is easy to
|   miss and therefore delete mis-posts.  so fix subscription addresses! ]
| 
| Randy Bush writes:
| > it is easy to miss and therefore delete mis-posts
| 
| Funny how this happens so often for people you disagree with. Several
| incidents are documented in http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html.
| 
| You have been repeatedly informed that there are newsgroup readers,
| sublist readers, readers with private subscription addresses, etc.---
| but you don't fix your software, you don't turn the list over to someone
| competent, and you don't even take responsibility for your mistakes.

Beautifully spoken words from the man who likes to make even
subscribers to his lists jump through ludicrous hoops in order
to post to those lists.  Anybody who does things differently
from DJB is incompetent and wrong; only the DJB take on any
subject is reasonable.  Time to grow up.