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

Keith Moore <> Fri, 08 November 2019 21:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDC3120805 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:40:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UxwuyATUmEjC for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:40:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C31DE120255 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:40:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0936A21C7A; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 16:40:05 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=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=DuETl6ooKVx6i0j+G0TEiARvqDlRuavEddYypAi+m vI=; b=gQZyEhHPjvSlo8m6yOTz+WIBZlbn0Sr9uw0XGaleqeqgVVAHx3j7VJRJi 8zXWvBzo34brqXHGAwcTDt4vw+BMKMQwFjuOtlsRqtjsWr/4QkmvaXAdccIlkbWd P1ztKLX5abnOMjUhlG61YzRtgtAH0WnzgDkccC+bVtURfcFBgwYcWxnSu+4FzWv6 JTuwioOK63YXx3t0g4Av24oKquSxlMyfUF4D4AHhcukXlvVcH2dXAGOz91vn7GtJ qwV7ZPAVgLp4NBquNQxZntukSH+6COCkkNEkfqdQnNb4Wku48+whbEZJhv4Xn/YO ds/dfa7EFj6tNIFtsmkPVVZ5R6csg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:tODFXZM3FTv9QNsR-7ku-c4p34vYEq1bo5i0R3hk0yFaxPCBtBb36g>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvuddgudehgecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrd duheenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgv rhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:tODFXcYuJSGPg39yyutfFs3HdxlG0M81OwSqwYiOSA6262Vn31ScBQ> <xmx:tODFXYA-RrjuMmm5g2FBkLtPEgs8dzFdrwvj_5OUkpXygHC6T04qmg> <xmx:tODFXSFsoYbawB8p1_xgANsmuu8auDQTUEaSnLRAkAMJP13SGjucUA> <xmx:teDFXQkbNGq05x6HtfRDMHUx4HJYCt4wgmUv4z2AbnU3V4crRGX8UA>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 322B38005A; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:40:04 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 16:40:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 21:40:10 -0000

On 11/8/19 4:30 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:

>      > As long as the community expects that any working group that has
>      > support will be approved, that working groups can stay alive as long as
>      > they keep producing documents, and that any document that a working
> I'd really like them to stay alive while not producing (new) documents.
> So I feel that groups sometimes are eager to recharter because that is the
> only way to stay alive.  I'd like to change that.I

As far as I can tell, what makes people want to continue to participate 
in a working group is (usually) that they're working on new documents.

I don't think it should be a hard-and-fast rule, but I think that any 
group that tries to stay around long after its initial goals have been 
completed, should be regarded with extra scrutiny.

But I wouldn't object to having WG charters include interoperability 
testing as explicit milestones.

The goal of IETF should not be to produce as many documents as possible, 
it should be to produce the documents that the Internet needs most and 
that the IETF can best provide.

Perpetual WGs usually do not serve that goal, IMO.   Again, there are 
sometimes exceptions.

>      > And every time someone points out that IESG is overloaded, most of the
>      > proposed "solutions" seem to have the intent, or at least effect, of
>      > further reducing document quality.
> But, the bar is already very very high.
Maybe the bar is not high in the best ways.    IMO the "bar" should be 
about document quality and relevance, more than about the willingness to 
work past the point of exhaustion.