Re: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Definition V4.2: concern about "consumer-grade"

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike,

You can't force people to actually listen to each other, they have to 
want to. To put it into a constituency framework, the BC has to want to 
listen to the RC, not just run to a vote, and the observers have to want 
to listen to the contractual parties, not just soapbox. If this were 
simple and without complications, I sure wouldn't be here.
I don't know what qualifies as "the worst outcome", but it seems 
possible to me that all parties present could want to do something 
constructive, and yet not manage to do so, in part through not wanting 
enough to listen to each other. As there are contributors to this 
activity I no longer want to listen to, I no longer see this as a 
hypothetical failing, my own utility as a contributor is diminished.
Eric

Mike O'Connor wrote:
> hm.  let's not go there just yet.   i think there's more hard work to 
> do before we all walk away from the table.
> At 01:34 PM 8/1/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > Best use of time, not fight or flight. The distance between observers 
> > and contractual parties is simply too great, so a synthesis of views 
> > would simply present a significantly incomplete picture to the 
> > Council, probably at the expense of some non-contractual parties as 
> > well.
> > See Mike R's note.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > > an observation -- in any conflict, we're always making the choice 
> > > between "fight" or "flight."  some of us fight first, and then 
> > > flight.  some of us flight first and fight if folks run after us and 
> > > box us in.  much misunderstanding happens when those things mix.
> > > i'm proposing a third option.  take a breath...  maybe a walk...  
> > > and stay in the game.  we need you in here with us.  we need the 
> > > clash of all ideas because that's how we learn.
> > > if we were in meat space, i'd propose a beer together...
> > >
> > > please stay.
> > >
> > > m
> > >
> > > At 12:46 PM 8/1/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mike,
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy to continue separately, and I don't think a less 
> > > > responsible engagement to the purposes of the PDP will result from 
> > > > two efforts.
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > Mike O'Connor wrote:
> > > > > ahem.
> > > > >
> > > > > a fella finishes up a phone call, breaks for lunch, is just 
> > > > > drifting off for the Afternoon Nap when a fistfight breaks out on 
> > > > > the list.
> > > > > Eric, a gentle reminder -- let's keep the discussion civil here.
> > > > > this last post was a little outside the limit.
> > > > >
> > > > > how's a geezer to get his rest, otherwise?  :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > m
> > > > >
> > > > > At 11:49 AM 8/1/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > is this for my benefit joe, or are you just spouting off?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if it is for my benefit, then you have to be addressing the 
> > > > > > assertion, mine, that autonomous system is less determinitive of 
> > > > > > risk than whether the network attached device is a microsoft 
> > > > > > operating system product, and therefore a poor substitute, if the 
> > > > > > root cause is not to be ignored.
> > > > > > reputation has been discussed more than once on nanog, which i 
> > > > > > know even if you don't.
> > > > > > hold the "regards", i prefer real ones over what's available.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe St Sauver wrote:
> > > > > > > Eric mentioned:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #Further, using AS as determinative is vastly less accurate to 
> > > > > > > the root #problem than using if-MS-then-NO as a gating 
> > > > > > > mechanism, regardless of #how much corporate chrome there is on 
> > > > > > > the AS and its commercial #operations. Since I don't think 
> > > > > > > people want to go down the #if-MS-then-obvious-conclusion path, 
> > > > > > > the AS-is-guilty false equivalent #should be dismissed.
> > > > > > > In general, ASNs do accumulate reputation, just as domains 
> > > > > > > accumulate
> > > > > > > reputation, and just as netblocks accumulate reputation. One 
> > > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > notorious example of this from recent years would probably be 
> > > > > > > the "RBN"
> > > > > > > case, although there are others.
> > > > > > > The real value of ASN-based reputation accumulation, however, is 
> > > > > > > that:
> > > > > > > -- there are relatively few ASNs (at least until 4 byte ASNs get
> > > > > > >    widely deployed)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- it is possible to mechanically and scalably map IP's to ASNs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- if you route a network block, you also have the option of not 
> > > > > > > routing
> > > > > > >    all or part of that block (e.g., there is a connection 
> > > > > > > between an    ASN associated with an activity, and the ability 
> > > > > > > to control that
> > > > > > >    activity)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Most ASNs live somewhere on the vast continuum rightward of 
> > > > > > > clean-as-
> > > > > > > the-driven-snow and leftward of dirty-as-a-deep-rock-coal-miner-at-
> > > > > > > end-of-shift, although there are some AS's that truly do anchor the
> > > > > > > extremities of that scale. (Arguably, a trivial example of a 
> > > > > > > "100% guilty ASN" is one that has been hijacked, for example.)
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joe
> > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus 
> > > > > > Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 7/31/2008 12:00 PM
> > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus 
> > > > Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 7/31/2008 12:00 PM
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.138 / Virus 
> > Database: 270.5.10/1585 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 6:39 AM