IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 02 March 2017 02:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 16C4B129646 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:05:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 4OCRJVKjKzJF for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27C021295EB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 18:05:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98DE2009E; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:28:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692A36381A; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:05:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu>
Subject: Re: RANT: posting IDs more often -- more is better -- why are we so shy?
In-Reply-To: <13e5803d-c2f3-7bc8-63c8-2a8311c22fae@isi.edu>
References: <14476.1488384266@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <13e5803d-c2f3-7bc8-63c8-2a8311c22fae@isi.edu>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:05:43 -0500
Message-ID: <17514.1488420343@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LaFuM85sj6QsjO6YJcKjFpeKblI>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 02:05:45 -0000

Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
    > 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.

Good point, but tell me why -01 and -09 and -17 don't come out faster?
If it's because the authors are busy, and aren't working on that document,
that's fine.  But I'm seeing some kind of shyness to putting new versions out.

Is there a distrust of documents which have "too many" revisions?
I consider that often a good sign!

Should the beautiful history bar in the datatracker, have some measure of
changes?  Would graph of lines changed (in the XML!) per revision be
interesting?   Would that help know how close a document is to being ready?


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status