Re: Running code, take 2

John C Klensin <> Sat, 15 December 2012 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD2F21F8513 for <>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:14:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hJpKlaI4k9Tb for <>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BCE21F84C8 for <>; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:14:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.71 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1Tjz3l-0003H5-NT; Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:14:13 -0500
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:14:08 -0500
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Yaron Sheffer <>
Subject: Re: Running code, take 2
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <006601cdd93c$6f9f7a00$4ede6e00$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:14:16 -0000

--On Saturday, December 15, 2012 18:03 +0200 Yaron Sheffer
<> wrote:

> Hi John,
> According to Google, exactly one such report was issued:
> (the published RFC omitted the results of the experiment,
> somehow). And this particular experiment is not even mentioned
> in Two other
> experiments are listed, and I was unable to find any reports
> summarizing them.
> So I'm willing to concede that the "process experiment"
> experiment failed. But since I think it *could have been* a
> valuable process, and since I'm seeing an IESG member
> proposing to use it, I would request to hear from the IESG if
> they think RFC 3933 is still a management tool they'd like to
> use.


FWIW, _I_ still think it us a useful tool for situations in
which an experiment cannot otherwise be performed without
violating existing procedures.   In that regard, I've just been
trying to make two points:

(1) As far as I can tell, neither your proposal nor Stephen's
requires a violation of existing rules.   Both, again as far as
I can tell, can be performed by agreement between WG Chairs and
the relevant AD and at the discretion of the latter.   That
assumes that no one on the IESG would object strenuously and
that no one would find a decision to appeal on the grounds that
the faster procedure had the effect of suppressing important
input, but those risks would occur even if there were a formal
process experiment.

(2) One cannot justify a formal, 3933-style, process experiment
on the grounds that it would produce a report.  Reports are
possible without such experiments and, as you have seen, despite
the 3933 requirement the reports often do not appear in the
official record.