Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Tue, 22 December 2015 17:01 UTC
Return-Path: <jari.arkko@piuha.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 67F4D1A887B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:01:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 dHFdGY6KH1BW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:01:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from p130.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAC301A88DE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:01:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2693A2CCE5; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:01:42 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at piuha.net
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (p130.piuha.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VpYe0RbLvEzD; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:01:41 +0200 (EET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [IPv6:2a00:1d50:2::130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AD202CCAE; Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:01:41 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from jari.arkko@piuha.net)
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5BD7227D-DDB8-4D81-8700-9736AC96D252"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.5.1
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
In-Reply-To: <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:01:39 +0200
Message-Id: <6D6ECEC3-126E-4F32-BCD0-8B488A0C690D@piuha.net>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.com> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <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.com> <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>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IYaZZIOynWCLhfSzSHPBuBZIdgg>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:01:45 -0000
> Instead we should understand that we cannot and should not try to demand or expect documents that are perfect. We should demand 'good enough' and let the outside world evaluate and feed the results back to us. One view is that we already are in that mode. I don’t think any reasonable person could claim that any specification from a standards body of any sort is perfect, including from the IETF. More interestingly, the question is whether our community, directorate, and IESG reviews and associated practices reach the ‘good enough’ level or under- or overshoot. But one person’s egregiously unnecessary fine-tuning is another person’s major threat to the Internet. Personal opinion: we overdo it, a lot of the time. But I think we are agreeing that we actually shoot for ‘good enough’ but do too little follow-up and revision. I could cite many counter examples where that follow-up does happen. But in many cases there is no follow-up. Why is that? Specification turned out to be uninteresting, so need to follow-up? Close enough, no business need to waste time to get to perfection? Remaining details hammered out in interops, code already runs, no need to revise? Aside from the few errata, no need for bigger changes? Worst specs are revised others are good enough? IETF process too complicated for the update? Probably a mixture of these reasons. Jari
- 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