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

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

yep -- I agree with part of what you're saying.  One of the 
interesting outcomes (which I'm hoping not to have to explore) is 
"what happens if we have a consensus of the constituencies but that 
consensus doesn't include the expert/observer folks?"  Ultimately, 
this is a "rough consensus" process, which means it's fine to have 
sections of our report that aren't agreeable to all, along with 
minority position-statements.  But...
<grovelling>

Let me offer this plea to all of us.  Please listen to each 
other.   Please try to learn from each other's points of view and 
modify your positions accordingly.  Stand up for the constituents you 
represent, but also try to find the places where we can meet in the middle.
To you expert-type-people who've torqued Eric off  -- please note 
that your stake in this game is a little different.  That's part of 
why I ran a little roughshod over Joe earlier in the week -- 
ultimately some of us have more skin in this game than others and we 
need to acknowledge that as well.
</grovelling>

Onward,

m

At 01:58 PM 8/1/2008, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
> 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
> 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