Re: [babel] info model: configurability of intervals

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@toke.dk> Fri, 26 February 2021 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <toke@toke.dk>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F8D3A098D for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:07:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=toke.dk
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T67ARwTs5xG9 for <babel@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:07:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.toke.dk (mail.toke.dk [45.145.95.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 706B73A09BE for <babel@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 13:07:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Toke =?utf-8?Q?H=C3=B8iland-J=C3=B8rgensen?= <toke@toke.dk>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=toke.dk; s=20161023; t=1614373640; bh=r1jTTeOUbaosHVwShGmwsOVvtx65CxGc3gIbT0u7zgI=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=Jl/3w/r6oXWRRK0N16l2LVEvHDO5ORqjRc6jkpdf8YWnyQBG81NfmnXGx9emxNZlj 2kuMp3QZsGQUiJUsRxiSgSI0nMmsVAChQfZTX17NXczlB7vFOyriZI9KWKLhLmrHHY J+brNbv3cRQGVFXd5BD0tBN8y3y7JEblAfXD8gVlKHaAhovUs7VULqYaYNLZZKyK/X PI1pRNNgJDw7A98Ed2Iaoip/Do4FtvL8ECmBh99EZpwqqC0vL6MxpUnvhzvD0lXtN9 vqrytkCTXu9LNJh5V7Ylt4TDZyJFlRxZR7wdvs7k5f0q7/ibP5f6jgNiwTnlE53EzJ 46qJeAHdqtiFA==
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>, "STARK, BARBARA H" <bs7652@att.com>
Cc: "'babel@ietf.org'" <babel@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <87blc6ipzp.wl-jch@irif.fr>
References: <DM6PR02MB6924C2CF2ACCCFD1FDBE0C23C39F9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <87im6h2yfr.fsf@toke.dk> <DM6PR02MB69249A7022428C82F1532467C39D9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <87blc6ipzp.wl-jch@irif.fr>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 22:07:19 +0100
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
Message-ID: <878s7azgfs.fsf@toke.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/7QxMXVydUwODB4CLDTdmIV6YkNs>
Subject: Re: [babel] info model: configurability of intervals
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 21:07:26 -0000

Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr> writes:

>> IIRC, Juliusz had suggested human admins were likely to have little
>> understanding of what was needed and the implementation was in a better
>> position to adjust values appropriately based on metrics.
>
> Yes.  Experience shows that human admins like to tweak things, and that
> a lot of time they get their tweaks wrong.
>
>> But based WG list traffic, there doesn't seem to be a strong WG belief
>> that we need to support human configuration of intervals at this time.
>
> I would tend to agree.
>
>> Would it be ok if we left these read-only current-value interval
>> parameters as is and didn't add any other parameters to support
>> configuration, at this time?
>
> Yes.

Fine with me as well :)

-Toke