Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F59E129667 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:48:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sbNK0b3OKyaC for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from nitro.isi.edu (nitro.isi.edu [128.9.208.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D27C1293D8 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [128.9.184.129] ([128.9.184.129]) (authenticated bits=0) by nitro.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v21MlYLi018875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:47:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy? To: Michael Richardson , ietf@ietf.org References: <14476.1488384266@obiwan.sandelman.ca> From: Joe Touch Message-ID: <13e5803d-c2f3-7bc8-63c8-2a8311c22fae@isi.edu> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 14:47:34 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <14476.1488384266@obiwan.sandelman.ca> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------945CA305A64E9AD02F7AA25D" X-MailScanner-ID: v21MlYLi018875 X-ISI-4-69-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu Archived-At: X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF-Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 22:48:00 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------945CA305A64E9AD02F7AA25D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 3/1/2017 8:04 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: > I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out, > and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly > polished. FWIW, industry often doesn't let out ideas until filing preliminary patents, which has a similar effect. AFAICT, the speed of an -00 is more tightly correlated to the motivation for the document. When a WG has a known need for a particular doc, the -00 comes out earlier (pull model). When an idea is driven by the doc itself (push model), it's more useful to have enough in place to have a useful discussion about. That said, I really wish that -00s that aren't pull-driven would try to stay under 5 pages of content. Dumping dozens of pages and asking for feedback isn't a good way to *_start _*a discussion. Joe --------------945CA305A64E9AD02F7AA25D Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 3/1/2017 8:04 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:

I understand that in academia, they never like letting half-baked ideas out,
and so the -00 that we see from academics are often overdue and overly
polished.

FWIW, industry often doesn't let out ideas until filing preliminary patents, which has a similar effect.

AFAICT, the speed of an -00 is more tightly correlated to the motivation for the document.

When a WG has a known need for a particular doc, the -00 comes out earlier (pull model).

When an idea is driven by the doc itself (push model), it's more useful to have enough in place to have a useful discussion about.

That said, I really wish that -00s that aren't pull-driven would try to stay under 5 pages of content. Dumping dozens of pages and asking for feedback isn't a good way to start a discussion.

Joe
--------------945CA305A64E9AD02F7AA25D--