Re: [CCAMP] The hat trick
"BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@ATT.COM> Mon, 28 January 2013 20:03 UTC
Return-Path: <db3546@att.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB67A21F8A67 for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:03:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XLZPEJzoeVZR for <ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:03:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com [209.65.160.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C562D21F89C0 for <ccamp@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:03:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com) by nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) with ESMTP id 889d6015.750a8940.747951.00-528.2038887.nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (envelope-from <db3546@att.com>); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:03:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5106d98871b80b6e-6be4b797ae03bd2dfcf8cf42aa4d4145472c6918
Received: from unknown [144.160.20.145] (EHLO mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) by nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com(mxl_mta-6.15.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 189d6015.0.747920.00-340.2038722.nbfkord-smmo04.seg.att.com (envelope-from <db3546@att.com>); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:03:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-MXL-Hash: 5106d9856aa46ac1-bd1d7497ac7ce18a9e0dd62232fe75a35b4b0126
Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0SK3B7q020287; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:03:13 -0500
Received: from sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (sflint02.pst.cso.att.com [144.154.234.229]) by mlpd192.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r0SK36ZB020154 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:03:07 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUB9A.ITServices.sbc.com (misout7msghub9a.itservices.sbc.com [144.151.223.62]) by sflint02.pst.cso.att.com (RSA Interceptor); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:02:51 -0500
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.75]) by MISOUT7MSGHUB9A.ITServices.sbc.com ([144.151.223.62]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Mon, 28 Jan 2013 15:02:51 -0500
From: "BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A" <db3546@ATT.COM>
To: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>, Igor Bryskin <IBryskin@advaoptical.com>
Thread-Topic: The hat trick
Thread-Index: Ac39ZaelYtW7hPW6Q/qy/QKuSXA6zAAJ8ofQAAB/BaA=
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:02:51 +0000
Message-ID: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C8259CC4@MISOUT7MSGUSR9O.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <CDAC6F6F5401B245A2C68D0CF8AFDF0A1915F9E4@atl-srv-mail10.atl.advaoptical.com> <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B710C3A@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <0182DEA5604B3A44A2EE61F3EE3ED69E0B710C3A@BL2PRD0510MB349.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.16.234.214]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)]
X-MAIL-FROM: <db3546@att.com>
X-SOURCE-IP: [144.160.20.145]
X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=OKOQK1mB c=1 sm=0 a=ZRNLZ4dFUbCvG8UMqPvVAA==:17 a]
X-AnalysisOut: [=RWEAq7CW3jcA:10 a=ofMgfj31e3cA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9]
X-AnalysisOut: [zAlcOel0A:10 a=zQP7CpKOAAAA:8 a=XIqpo32RAAAA:8 a=ed51lL5FJ]
X-AnalysisOut: [V4A:10 a=OUXY8nFuAAAA:8 a=AEDFM0qtAAAA:8 a=wU2YTnxGAAAA:8 ]
X-AnalysisOut: [a=pmb6BNNbAAAA:8 a=wznNEJTjI4f7zLbX6yEA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:1]
X-AnalysisOut: [0 a=peF9eE_zjQwA:10 a=jqlaW5bC1iAA:10 a=33rK67OTR_gA:10 a=]
X-AnalysisOut: [7N0VDwPMIj8A:10 a=VoFH56Qc4gh3qncx:21 a=7oiy2ReN8qkZ4njD:2]
X-AnalysisOut: [1]
Cc: CCAMP <ccamp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] The hat trick
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ccamp>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:03:38 -0000
In case you missed Adrian's mail, this list is for CCAMP (technical) discussion. Refer to RFCs: 1855, 2026, 2418, 3184, and 3934. This thread is closed. -----Original Message----- From: John E Drake [mailto:jdrake@juniper.net] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 2:37 PM To: Igor Bryskin; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A Cc: CCAMP; adrian@olddog.co.uk; Lou Berger (lberger@labn.net) Subject: RE: The hat trick Igor, I don't think Lou or Adrian would approve of my replying to your email. Seriously, I think they would be the first to tell you that I have a rather jaundiced opinion of anything they say, regardless of what hat they are wearing. If you remember, I pushed back against both Lou and Julien regarding their desire to have multiple switching type values for the same switching technology and they eventually agreed. When listening to a WG chair or AD speak, the trick is to imagine them doing so wearing a dunce hat. Irrespectively Yours, John > -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Bryskin [mailto:IBryskin@advaoptical.com] > Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 8:45 AM > To: John E Drake; BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A > Cc: CCAMP; adrian@olddog.co.uk; Lou Berger (lberger@labn.net) > Subject: The hat trick > > John, > > You said: > > I disagree. Airing dirty laundry in public is too > entertaining to stop. > > All right then, here is another topic for you. > > You are very respectable IETFer and seem to be here forever (certainly > since I can remember myself). I wonder what do you (and other CCAMPers) > think about these cute little "My hat on/off" statements? That's > right, the ones that IETF ADs and WG Chairs do with a coquettish smile > quite often at IETF meetings and on the mailing lists. The assumption > is, of course, that the things must be said by ADs/Chairs and > interpreted by the audience differently depending on whether the hat is > said to be in "on" or "off" position. This is a quite safe and > reasonable assumption, if one designs a signaling protocol for network > elements, for which it is possible to set proper filters, program > processing rules and maintain a separate independent state for each > conversation. However, ADs, Chairs and the audience are humans, i.e. > they are not very good at compartmentalizing the information in non- > overlapping memory spaces. When I, for one, hear or read an > AD's/Chair's statement, the statement always carries the AD/Chair > weight. > > Let's take an example. Consider in a middle of a heated technical > discussion on a CCAMP WG session, Adrian comes up to the mike and > makes his hat-off comment. What does this exactly mean? Does it mean > that Adrian may have a separate hat-on opinion, that is opposite or > perpendicular to what he just said? I don't think so. The way I see it, > Adrian, being an excellent expert in many areas, has developed an > opinion that he genuinely believes may help the discussion. But, being > also very professional, Adrian believes that at this level of > discussion (or for whatever other reasons) it is somewhat inappropriate > for an AD to influence the discussion. The end result of the statement > is as follows. I, Igor Bryskin, am sitting in the audience and just > heard a statement that might very well influence the discussion and its > outcome. The statement came from Adrian Farrel, who happens to be one > of the Routing Area ADs (and I don't forget about this for a second) at > the precise moment when according to Adrian himself it is inappropriate > for an AD to influence the discussion. I might remember the statement > for quite a while, and I may communicate the statement to other some 37 > people. What I will immediately forget is what Adrian has said about > his hat, and this information will be lost on me and these 37 poor > souls. I am sure that the same happens to most (if not all) of the > crowd. I have never read, for example, emails like: > > " Dear Adrian (with your AD hat on)! Thank you very much for your > thoughtful comments on our draft...." or "Adrian (with his AD hat off) > suggested to use his favorite LSP_ATTRIBUTES object, but I don't hate > this idea and since it was suggested with the hat off, I think it is Ok > to simply ignore the suggestion". > Nor I remember a conversation like: > "Igor, listen, I am about to make my XYZ draft last call vote. When Lou > made this comment on the ASSOCIATION object, could you tell me where > his hat was?" "Sorry, John, I have to come back to you with that: I > have to go through the meetings minutes as well as through some 1013 > emails that Lou has posted on the list since then. I am afraid, you > will be late with your vote" > > Furthermore, ADs and Chairs do not talk just on the sessions and > mailing lists. There are also private emails, telephone calls, face-to- > face meetings even bar conversations. Call me a pessimist, but I doubt > that in all these circumstances ADs/Chairs do not forget to update > their hat status (especially in the bar). So, the point is that the > "Hat on/off" thing does not really work as intended, which is not a > problem per-se. The problem is that intentionally or unintentionally > this opens up ways for quite unfair play. > > I don't know what you, John, know about football (soccer), but imagine > a match between two teams - one in red, one in white - and there is a > guy on the pitch with a hat: when the hat is on, the guy is the umpire > of the game, when the hat is off, he is a striker for the reds. You can > imagine a lot of funny things happening in such a game. For example, > the guy with his umpire hat on can pick up a proper situation and > moment, stop the game and grant a penalty against whites. Then, with > the hat off, he can take the penalty and score for the reads. And when > it looks like the whites are about to score the equalizer, the guy can > put his umpire hat back, blow the whistle and say: "Time is up, game is > over, reds won". Fortunately such a thing cannot happen in soccer: not > only a guy cannot be in the same game an umpire and a player of one of > the teams, an umpire cannot be associated in any way with one team more > than with the other (an umpire cannot be even from the same city or > country as one team but not the other). Why is that? Simple, to ensure > fair play, so that a better, more deserving team wins and moves into > the next round, while the bad team loses and gets kicked out of the > competition. That's what makes soccer such a beautiful game, by far the > most popular in the world: simple well thought through rules and fair > play". > > If you don't like my analogy with soccer, consider a criminal case > trial in the court of law, where the judge is saying something like > this: " With my judge hat off I have to say that I agree completely > with the defense. Also in my previous life I was both defense and > district attorney, and my experience of being involved in such or > similar cases tells me that in 80% of the cases the defendant ends up > verdicted as not guilty. Now, with my judge hat back on, please, > proceed ...." > > You may disagree with any of these analogies, but I hope you see where > I am getting at. With the hat trick It is quite possible to influence > the IETF game (which is creating RFCs) with the end result that it is > possible for poor architectures and bad solutions to make into useless > RFCs, while for good ideas to be killed and forgotten. > Here is a simple question: When a WG Chair systematically pushes one > solution while vigorously fights off an alternative one, does it matter > whether the Chair is doing this with his hat on or off, considering > that at the end of the day the Chair is the only one (along with co- > Chairs) who gets to make a call on rough consensus and hence to decide > which solution wins? > > I say, no it does not matter, and this is unfair to you, John, because > while the Chair can take off his hat at any time, you, as a potential > (co-)author of the alternative solution, cannot put the WG Chair hat on > and overrule the call on the consensus. I suggest we nail down the hats > to AD/Chair heads and outlaw the hat trick to be used as an excuse. In > my opinion, WG chair is, figuratively speaking, 75% soccer umpire and > 25% soccer coach, but never a soccer player. > > Does this make sense? Sorry for the long email. > > Cheers, > Igor
- [CCAMP] The hat trick Igor Bryskin
- Re: [CCAMP] The hat trick John E Drake
- Re: [CCAMP] The hat trick BRUNGARD, DEBORAH A