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

Keith Moore <> Fri, 22 October 2021 17:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8607B3A11A8 for <>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dZ5K3NAX5dZR for <>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CA083A0E98 for <>; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:17:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BF403200F76; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:17:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:17:07 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; 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=gxz2UzFyG/WIpfmxDijPAgRvTewHLq/nySRyfXtBG PA=; b=SwW2sLzWroAvtDZu2gCyk+LMu342MTZEXy49WOKsibPo6ZvmNxy7zUY1i KHD0jVS76/e3OOnrNqui64j5hPX/fFKdtlNFj3qWyPnHBZZRtiXt19fFCp6/aYyo kXEmy7PZ3jT6BRYjI6nV1pwP7tu/IP5pYfShnKpduMM6mpo9xySVekhnMMlQmpUn A/TG9InXHa0y6WYkqEz00xEo1xnrDh5fUMM+DCgKv4X3KGRhQ6NbFNC/QHehXMSG RwqSfoRtfMjhUPfAkBwG/+E9ppoxv/NVWyCeKZRa3H69Oaa1fk1yaCsi7Gcx+I5z VvLFdzXubVTCkGhZy/OUcG8fHj+ew==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:EvJyYUPAsfEsNCba_MpsNJFp27dZUdYTikt17L-NJSiiB5ergMhKYg> <xme:EvJyYa8qJTvekKSFqksw-PCRv-GRVQ1hV3KIk_a-X86nIF7I0nvxf8g15Ip_S3LuL MtnFrQfzJRRSQ>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:EvJyYbS-4KXdOTo8TCCVo-1S3n6usaLh05twUXrZPekWULsI9pFa_dsHFNKGnks5lr8ga8kw7jySbCF2r95897bERfAWex4I5eOV4kHyWQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvddvkedgjedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihht hhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvghtfihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomh eqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhephefhuedtheefgfefgffhkeehgfeugfeiudeugeejkeef leelueeiffetfeeuudeunecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:EvJyYctW2ral1Cuw67_lj7fnhIWTv495CIV0SOc-YDtqh9jr6ATtbA> <xmx:EvJyYccaWU4zXcR868HzfBtu31Fy0WD7XoWfS5MKkWPYWe0JaGZQfw> <xmx:EvJyYQ3NWSxP0SvsRdLyTKNKpHlXvSaSq1BOjsGFSmsiolbnD7lZjw> <xmx:EvJyYdoZrKWsOlaytklA2aQnzb0fWQh3Pdw3ozNhImhVqmmuZ3DKQQ>
Received: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:17:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]
To: "Salz, Rich" <>, Christian Huitema <>, Brian E Carpenter <>, Barry Leiba <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 13:17:04 -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: <>
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, 22 Oct 2021 17:17:13 -0000

On 10/22/21 1:08 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:

>>     There was a huge difference in another metric, the time from initial
>      draft to published RFC. Back in 1998, the median delay was one year. It
>      was already more than 3 years in 2008, and still is. Much of the delays
>      happen in the working group, from initial draft to last call.
> So the common beliefs that things are taking longer is wrong (for the past 13 years!) and that the delays are because WG's are sending less-good documents to the IESG is wrong.

It's possible that "publishing an RFC" is a poor metric for meaningful 
work accomplished, because not all RFCs are of equal utility or 
importance even though they have more-or-less equal overhead in publication.

Even if less-good I-Ds don't bog down IESG (maybe IESG just throws up 
its hands and gives up trying to fix things that aren't fixable?), they 
might bog down the working groups trying to produce them.   People work 
harder when they believe their work is meaningful and/or get feedback 
from others, and discussions are more productive when there are enough 
interested parties to actively participate in them.

> My theory for the possible increased mail traffic is that folks are doing more business between meetings, and the increased use of GitHub which increases volume because of increased participation.
> Always good to have real numbers.

  It's good to have real numbers - you can get some useful insights from 
them sometimes - as long as you don't consider them more meaningful than 
they are.