Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 27 June 2008 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5273A68F3; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 211303A68DF for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, GUARANTEED_100_PERCENT=0.012]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bV9iLwPzQa23 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9433A6781 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 27so673757wfd.31 for <>; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+0KFQskU5FVeg3MAJ3T7haDgO+cjKDrZxUXHwTKazxk=; b=FeQDxNd/WdSFuVpHTKbPewLoa67edu3h1PkTUeUpjRauXCS2pwd6lghhrCT9s7j30B PL2Ot/3eYCfGY41qXCo4eIbOVQKwPsrqqPssO0dlbMT+EEdSvMB6Z3CRqpHXYaRmS6f9 3f5pHqfD9IfAtU1kdqVawhCS00EQasKn/oSeA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=f8zP1ReDzaP5LNWvhmi/tPpUNAmykcM9QWRWBVXayTIYyxtnOSvk2upRaJx5UEbAjt we83rDr0oS0fGkbBm5z/FGlFq/u9SDs0qhYR8B1d03q7Z3h87CdnqLMVrxJJv900g0mx NlJjMt1ObQ9p3UQ6wTCHuOAwH3oVQta/KcApQ=
Received: by with SMTP id u15mr729080wfd.181.1214604518266; Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id 27sm4051400wff.19.2008. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:08:33 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lakshminath Dondeti <>
Subject: Re: Qualitative Analysis of IETF and IESG trends (Re: Measuring IETF and IESG trends)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Jari Arkko <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2008-06-28 02:09, Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
> My point was this: if a WG actually missed anything substantial and that
> comes out during an IETF last call, and the shepherding AD agrees, the
> document gets sent back to the WG.  If the shepherding AD also misses or
> misjudges, any member of the IESG can send it back to the WG for
> resolution.  What I think is not acceptable is for the author and one or
> more DISCUSS ADs to hack up the document and publish it.

I completely agree. We can get into trouble if there's disagreement
whether the DISCUSS issue is only "important editorial" or substantive,
because if it's editorial, the WG really doesn't need to be involved.

Of course, sending a disputed issue back to the WG is 100% guaranteed
to cause delay, and sometimes a long delay if the dispute is profound.
That's what a quantitative analysis can't see, and neither can
a qualitative analysis if it only looks at the finished RFC.

Ietf mailing list