Re: [Icar] Progress?
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 19 April 2004 18:25 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29500
for <icar-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:25:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdP6-0007Oy-QR
for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:22:00 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost)
by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3JIM0Dm028450
for icar-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:22:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdMb-0006px-Mj
for icar-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA29247
for <icar-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFdMZ-0005z0-5Y
for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:23 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
id 1BFdLd-0005ko-00
for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:18:26 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19])
by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFdLB-0005W5-00
for icar-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:17:57 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20)
id 1BFdGR-0005U6-6z; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:13:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org)
by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BFdA0-0003ht-V8
for icar@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:25 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1])
by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28444
for <icar@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx)
by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BFd9y-0002jT-Hi
for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:06:22 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12)
id 1BFd95-0002V7-00
for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:05:28 -0400
Received: from joy.songbird.com ([208.184.79.7])
by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BFd8B-00022h-00
for icar@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:04:31 -0400
Received: from bbfujip (jay.songbird.com [208.184.79.253])
by joy.songbird.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3JI3ud08128;
Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:03:56 -0700
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:04:05 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Reply-To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <1768034839.20040419110405@brandenburg.com>
To: Mark Allman <mallman@icir.org>
CC: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, icar@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Icar] Progress?
In-Reply-To: <20040419172603.3DEBC77A6D5@guns.icir.org>
References: <45741475.20040419100642@brandenburg.com>
<20040419172603.3DEBC77A6D5@guns.icir.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: icar-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: icar-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: icar@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>,
<mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Improved Cross-Area Review <icar.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:icar@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar>,
<mailto:icar-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,PRIORITY_NO_NAME
autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mark, MA> I'll buy this. But, there is a fine line between developing culture and MA> developing rules, I think. I.e., if we're relying on folk (especially MA> ADs) to cajole WGs into invoking the review function then we may be MA> basically creating de-facto rules. In the long-run, yes of course. However the difference in the near-term is massive. Near-term is a seductive appeal to benefits, with voluntary adoption, rather than a coercive imposition from an external authority. MA> The downside is time. People already think the IETF process is too MA> slow. Adding another step may simply look like lengthening the MA> process. Given current IETF timeframes, it is more likely that review processes will reduce the amount of time needed, rather than increasingly it, by virtue of early, basic improvements in the specification. MA> Of course, the hope is that we're also lopping off a MA> significant chunk at the end. right. but more than that. better focus of the working group. >> MA> SIRS didn't get much activity in the grand scheme of things. >> I've commented on the tendency to dismiss the SIRS experience before. MA> I was not insinuating that it was a failure. We'd do things differently MA> if we had it to do over. I'm not so sure. That would depend on the characteristics of the process that one believes should be different. I do not recall seeing arguments against points of the SIRS structure or in favor of alternative designs, that argue for superiority of results. MA> My point was that its existence did not MA> immediately yield people clamoring for reviews. Of course not. This is a community this is currently responding to crisis conditions by taking more than 2 years to make any meaningful changes. MA> If getting a breadth of MA> early reviews was self-evidently good then I'd have expected more. You shouldn't have. As I said, the problem is with the expectations. d/ -- Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com> Sunnyvale, CA USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301> _______________________________________________ Icar mailing list Icar@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/icar
- [Icar] Progress? Joel M. Halpern
- Links to experiments (Re: [Icar] Progress?) Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Dave Crocker
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Dave Crocker
- Re: Links to experiments (Re: [Icar] Progress?) Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Dave Crocker
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Mark Allman
- archiving reviews (Re: [Icar] Progress?) Mark Allman
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Dave Crocker
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Spencer Dawkins
- Re: [Icar] Progress? Mark Allman
- RE: [Icar] Progress? Robert Snively