Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 06 November 2019 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFACC1208B6 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:23:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FW6vSdZVwjPP; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:23:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9B871208AE; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 07:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A65B3818F; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:20:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFAFD14; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 10:23:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Terry Manderson <>
cc: Mark Nottingham <>, "nomcom-chair-2019\" <>, ietf <>
Subject: Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+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, 06 Nov 2019 10:23:49 -0500
Message-ID: <18856.1573053829@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 15:23:53 -0000

Terry Manderson <> wrote:
    > That document
    > has to be proven before it gets to the rubber stamp process.

really?  For a Proposed Standard?
At this point, our PS quality way exceeds Internet Standard in quality.
An ID-WG-08 massively exceeds RFC quality of 20 years ago.

My opinion is that the problem is that WGs get shutdown way too soon, and
they are not expected to deal with the consequences of (their) poor documents.

    > How you get there will require a culture change more significant than
    > living through behaviours towards new participants, greater gender
    > diversity involvement, cultural sensitives, and and understanding of
    > the leadership/follower dynamic. The reason that it will be hard is
    > that the extant culture (while I accept and appreciate my predecessors)
    > is that it is built on the shoulders of legends. It’s now the time of
    > the IETF to have a championship team, rather than a team of
    > champions. Each member of that team needs to be responsible and
    > accountable for their contribution. The world is changing around us,
    > much faster than we can adapt. The IETF agility is, sadly, deserving of
    > being turbo charged, and you can’t do that with a hand-full of
    > brilliant people as the “fixers”.

I agree with you here.

    > Understand that while the IETF has a huge reputation, there are other
    > standards bodies that are doing this better, and faster, and resulting
    > in bigger improvements to technology.

I'm actually not sure that I agree.  Can you give me an example?

Michael Richardson <>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-