Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 24 December 2015 02:21 UTC
Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475A51AD0BB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 SCHpOBCRpSLX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD05E1AD0B9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBO2LSku005551 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:28 -0800
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.c om> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net> <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com> <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net> <4AE6DC68FC9B8CA113CBCDFA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5678D728.2080404@dcrocker.net> <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net> <2508B3C2-8F5F-4417-8052-E73B6F34BED1@standardstrack.com> <567ACCEE.9030503@dcrocker.net> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0C2DE@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <567B56A9.4030302@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:29 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0C2DE@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DNiVoPtbpEZ8AfUHYTuQHRL4kF8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 02:21:30 -0000
On 12/23/2015 5:46 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > Dave Crocker wrote: >> AD review appears to miss far more than it catches. That's seems >> to be difficult for some folk to accept, and so they point to the >> individual exceptions rather than the longer pattern of misses. >> (By way of some very strategic examples, consider IPv6 and DNSSec >> and email security and key management and...) > > Do you have data on this? Anecdotal. Mine. Over enough years to represent a pattern. (I'm not alone in this, but I'm reporting my own experience) In 25 years, not one single RFC I've worked on had a serious problem caught by an AD, though many were eventually discovered to have serious problems. Some were delayed by large numbers of non-substantive or flat-out-wrong AD Discusses, however. So we got significant costs with insignificant benefits and significant damage. Yes, there are legitimate issues caught. Again, my point is not enough (and by the way, not nearly soon enough.) > This doesn't match my experience. I've found AD review to be very > helpful. I find /all/ reviews "helpful". But that marginal benefit does not justify the strategic costs of consuming scarce resources, calendar delay, participant frustration, etc. by imposing them at the end of a long development cycle. > It's certainly inconvenient, Inconvenient is such a mild word. The aggregate effect of these kinds of hassles is decisions by potential participants to take their specifications elsewhere. > but I've seen AD reviews catch lots of things that were worth > catching. Again, that's not the issue. Every review by every reviewer tends to be performed honestly and well and to provide useful feedback. However that, unfortunately, does not justify the particulars of AD reviews. Please go back and consider the /balance/ of costs and benefits I cited. The benefit of periodically finding something significant needs to be balanced against the costs of resource consumption, significant issues missed, delays, and participant frustration. > I would not go so far as to claim that my anecdote is more valid than > yours, but I think that if we are going to make claims like this, we > should probably back them up with data. The current AD review > process didn't just happen. 25 years ago, the IETF was a very, very different place. We've kept the formal structures put in place then, without adapting to the changes. Simply put, what we put in place doesn't scale. We're supposed to know something about scaling issues, but we apply none of it to administration of the IETF... > On 12/23/2015 5:54 PM, Eric Burger wrote: >> I think the analogy here is that AD review, cross-area review, and >> sacrifices to Amaterasu will not find ALL of the bugs in a >> specification. The best we can hope for is to do best practices to >> keep the bugs to an acceptable, low level. The last sentence if quite reasonable, as long as it include the balance clause, "at an acceptable cost" and as long as we then fairly consider costs. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net
- Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- RE: Hotel situation Ted Lemon
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Wicinski
- RE: Hotel situation Ted Lemon
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Re: Hotel situation Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: Hotel situation Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Hotel situation Lou Berger
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hotel situation Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation John R Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Sarah Banks
- Re: Hotel situation Donald Eastlake
- Re: Hotel situation Livingood, Jason
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Livingood, Jason
- Re: Hotel situation Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Hotel situation Sarah Banks
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hotel situation Brian Rosen
- Re: Hotel situation Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)
- Re: Hotel situation Christian Hopps
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Fernando Gont
- Re: Hotel situation Fernando Gont
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Re: Hotel situation Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Eggert, Lars
- Re: Hotel situation Leif Johansson
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation Brian Rosen
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Melinda Shore
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Michal Krsek
- Re: Hotel situation Warren Kumari
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Venue Selection Objectives and Criteria was Re: H… Ray Pelletier
- Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Carsten Bormann
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Michal Krsek
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Andrew G. Malis
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Andrew Sullivan
- Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Wassim Haddad
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Richard Shockey
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) tom p.
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) John Levine
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) Stephen Farrell
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Meeting rotation (was Hotel situation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- RE: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ralph Droms
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) John C Klensin
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Jari Arkko
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Eric Burger
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) tom p.
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Hotel situation Pat (Patricia) Thaler
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Eric Burger
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Joel M. Halpern
- InterContinental BA experience so far (was: Re: H… Marco Davids
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Keith Moore
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… John Levine
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… Melinda Shore
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… John Levine
- Re: InterContinental BA experience so far (was: R… Fernando Gont
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Brian E Carpenter
- RE: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Ted Lemon
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Keith Moore
- Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation) Dave Crocker
- Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situatio… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situ… John C Klensin
- Re: Payouts for missed blocks (was Re: Hotel situ… Theodore Ts'o
- Independent Stream (was Re: Cross-area review (wa… Dave Crocker
- RE: Hotel situation Eric Gray
- Re: Hotel situation Mary Barnes
- Re: Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Stewart Bryant
- Re: Hotel situation Jari Arkko
- Re: Hotel situation l.wood
- Re: Hotel situation Christian Hopps
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Dave Crocker
- Re: Hotel situation Tim Chown
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Selection Objectives and Criteria was R… George, Wes
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation Jared Mauch
- Venue Data for Upcoming Meetings was Re: Hotel si… Ray Pelletier
- Re: Hotel situation tom p.
- Re: Hotel situation Bob Hinden
- Re: Hotel situation Randy Bush
- Re: Hotel situation Paul Wouters
- Re: Hotel situation Richard Shockey
- Re: Hotel situation Randy Bush
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Hotel situation lloyd.wood
- Re: locations, was Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: locations, was Hotel situation lloyd.wood
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- "resource-rich urban environments" (was "Re: Hote… Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: not really the current Hotel situation John Levine
- Re: Hotel situation Lloyd Wood
- Re: Hotel situation Randall Gellens
- Re: Hotel situation Toerless Eckert
- Re: Hotel situation John C Klensin
- Re: Hotel situation Ole Jacobsen
- Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation John Levine
- RE: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation Christer Holmberg
- Re: ever more hypothetical Hotel situation Theodore V Faber
- Re: Venue Data for Upcoming Meetings was Re: Hote… Ray Pelletier