Journal of Internet Disasters

Sun Nov 15 03:22:04 UTC 1998

This thread has mostly looked at the details of the recent problem, and
hasn't responded much to Sean's original points.  A very notable exception
is Eric's thoughtful consideration of the approaches that might be taken
for a discussion forum.

The note about Sean's credibility obviously is also relevant, but I'll note
that the recent DNS controversy has made it clear that no amount of
personal credibility is enough to withstand a sustained and forceful attack
by a diligent and well-funded opponent.  Hence, the effort under
discussion, here, needs a group behind it, not just an individual.  Which
is not to say that having it led by a highly credible individual isn't
extremely helpful.

In considering the possible modes that Eric outlines, the two questions I
found myself asking were about openness and control.  Is it important that
the general public be kept out of the analysis and reporting process, as is
done for CERT, or is it important (or at least acceptable) that the public
be present?  With respect to control, should the discussion be subject to
control by an authority or should it be free-form?

At 02:17 PM 11/13/98 -0500, Eric M. Carroll wrote:
>- constitute a mailing list for failure analysis, everyone pitches in with
>or without assistance. The simple act of analyzing the options and possible
>failure modes is of value (note the reaction from Paul to your mail
>message - thus value is demonstrated!)

This is the open/no-control model.  It is the best for encouraging a broad
range of opinion.  It is the worst for permitting ad hominems, spin control
efforts, etc.

>- constitute a closed mailing list, by invitation only. Ask vendors for
>cooperation, and publish the results with the names removed to protect the
>guilty and ensure their cooperation. Publish their names if cooperation is
>refused.

This is probably the best for thoughtful analysis and the worst for
information gathering.

>- created a moderated digest list, IFAIL-D, and take input from anywhere,
>but vet it through a panel of experts for analysis and publication. That's
>basically your newsletter.

Open participation means broad input.  Moderation means control over the
emotional, etc. distractions.  It also might be quite a bit of effort for
the moderator...

>- create a real working group that meets and travels, and visits the vendors
>in person. Perhaps they get badges eventually, or cool NTSB like jackets ;-)

The most fun for the participants, expensive, and probably not (yet) necessary.

I've biased the analysis, to show which one I personally prefer, but it's
predicated on having a moderator with the time and skill to do the job.  On
the other hand, if we take the event detail analysis that has been mostly
going on for this thread, we find that contributions have been thoughtful
and constructive, so that the job of the moderator would have been minimal.  

In essence, the moderator introduces a small amount of delay but adds a
safety mechanism in case the tone would otherwise start getting out of hand.

And now that I've said that, there is a question about timeliness.  Does
the analysis need to be able to occur in emergency mode, to get things
fixed, or will these only be post hoc efforts?

d/

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                                       Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>             Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
                                         Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting                                          
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                       Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464              675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA