Re: Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 21 October 2021 22:05 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.com>
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 15F443A0DCB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:05:39 -0700 (PDT)
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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 t0h8MY8KS7Iy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FB6E3A0DCA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A328832008C0; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:05:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:05:29 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=9kiOlah0hr919XgB8/BfDUMAAfgvbRlEnaJQcs6Ls S4=; b=KhKtrI9LqZCnpi58ooQFh8Ad284pNOnl1c7edOd3PU2fJXqozKEC+SjyN 37AhqfhFeT0PvbhKWwMzGKdjJRR93GTj7jUlH9EW2lfzMgy7gODF9S3VLQqDasPC A4Z7cCvqxzRUCJT3TuDqo9A6x6Lg+H2a0WEaklOmQAXZ16zjREZjL0JjqPyMo9yB JXSyoVXi0PqntG0V5gqDj4vXCqiGQzTc/MyCVQESZpy3m+EdoCf4Ak4NFZlTKqUf ooy6YSKZrSF73K0ABasOkGj4gBEuRGe4JpZ3SbTIbhxGzFhajzG8+ikODuP6PnJe y5JVngjyyHyjqGO/uCjHBI4g96T3g==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:KORxYaTcbXPY7bRoPl6txIlPJYd09Z6J1umryoW7jOWNCu8Rqq_P5w> <xme:KORxYfxlKMHnkJoF3WB8nh3n1xCOpq8t72b-c3VtT4a55FGCGTyTMSWAqgII3IFVI zBXyalxuFHovg>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:KORxYX0shA1n7fepFfNMyw5N1rJplVZ7uMFvw3uS3Msj_8AYpvrKkQ85Ac1he7S81nJE5710TUbECp-MCFBKhimtBEJ3UItQzl_5HTb-Bg>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvjedgtdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedtheefgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeef leelueeiffetfeeuudeunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:KeRxYWCrXi_Zau-mIZEloSuSmqa0P1Mudhuo5fq1o7dmAFi2eF3DMQ> <xmx:KeRxYTj8CrKRNw_z3iJ3iD-dtHmRWum83oleCrEEqQ-eHDkUk2RrPQ> <xmx:KeRxYSpQzkHetIChapkyIiqnI2iukwF83IxqAT3f31jALxv03h24ow> <xmx:KeRxYTJ8CQ9w30lBkNNyreiGXBgBJKNyeUeC3Pxv2pnk4soqOeeRmQ>
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:05:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba=40computer.org@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <e6d59712-ca73-0723-5cb2-b1f749e37577@network-heretics.com> <CAC4RtVDCxp7RveAXxTUU47fYXw5ebV+yJTMkDAJWGvcq-4DyTw@mail.gmail.com> <25a9f62e-1957-0e77-1e7a-733d9dae4a86@gmail.com>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <02ccb205-d628-b490-946b-a518e963e210@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 18:05:27 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25a9f62e-1957-0e77-1e7a-733d9dae4a86@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UPe6XqsAP_GE_ah3lxiaxfVj8jg>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 21 Oct 2021 22:05:40 -0000

On 10/21/21 5:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Why do we publish about 300 RFCs per year, rather than (say) 100 or 500?

Is the relevance of a typical IETF RFC going up or down?  (I suspect the 
latter, but I'd love to have a reason to believe we're getting more 
relevant over time)

My impression is that the amount of work and time to produce an RFC 
stays about the same over time, or maybe increases.   If the relevance 
of a typical RFC is decreasing, we may be wasting a lot of effort.

Keith