[Eligibility-discuss] Implementation note: Fuzz in rule 2.
Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 29 September 2022 15:29 UTC
Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D67C14CE46 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.088
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.088 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ktjfk3h0dNZ1 for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57C29C15E3E9 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 08:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] ([47.186.48.51]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 28TFTE3f048111 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:29:14 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1664465355; bh=1EvEmyqcqHGRR5VTWj/KNyprXXpMFfnTmBsv8cIRj8g=; h=Date:To:From:Subject; b=piONe+QtUWXybIMhAkTRA8xAoQsFRC192Z8emSbU0fkHIdrXS+UOcKfdVUS91OGQR 41+cK273BPfgtjf4qpHNB4XKZWZI22egB+576QMHLpimG5sDCrJrrgfOrW92zUeOUj UZWECBIitTtbQpymXgbgwL7jZk+ibSCopqBXQ7ZM=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.48.51] claimed to be [192.168.1.102]
Message-ID: <fc9f2730-aea6-96c2-903e-449d352c811d@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:29:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.1
To: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Language: en-US
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/Z3wWpCXGOxIJyPXLJBllYOdhTRE>
Subject: [Eligibility-discuss] Implementation note: Fuzz in rule 2.
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF eligibility procedures <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 15:29:22 -0000
At: > Path 2: The person has been a Working Group Chair or Secretary within > the 3 years prior to the day the call for NomCom volunteers is sent > to the community. The text is fine. Please do not change that text based on what I say here. I just want to raise awareness of a rough edge in implementation. Right now, the datatracker has a very poor idea of when someone _stops_ being a chair (or stops being in any other role). It has to be inferred, and it can infer incorrectly. So, for the short term (likely to extend through the 2023 selection process), there will be fuzz for some people with roles that ended just before the window path 2 describes, or started in the role between the date the call for volunteers was sent to the community and when eligibility is assessed. The implementation will fail such that it is more inclusive (it will overqualify rather than underqualify any person that falls into that fuzz). In the long run, we will improve the datatracker's way of tracking when roles are exited and can be more precise in implementing path 2. RjS
- [Eligibility-discuss] Implementation note: Fuzz i… Robert Sparks
- Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Implementation note: Fu… Michael Richardson