Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director

Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com> Thu, 07 March 2013 15:11 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@cisco.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 839E221F8D31 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:11:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.237
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.237 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 131tz76QqReM for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:11:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-2.cisco.com (mtv-iport-2.cisco.com [173.36.130.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F9321F8994 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:11:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1741; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362669078; x=1363878678; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=NQVtF3wwrMpvoFok7o7m9Wy3mfCUa4/CwW7u5uHVeXc=; b=kPw8OQCWn4xc58ZlIjBVdBkHf4y3gWKt0h77CxrQroLLBG2P4TwR17GM jrtkAnQHPRF+7zT5tHYtbsg2dx3BTMueqJwq17XNf/W4AJwvGZsqhllaS mLyc4lnjU61QRoeAF7ampPTosgKuizRbmVuoNPQca9MOGGILKiVopI3Bu I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAPisOFGrRDoH/2dsb2JhbABDxEaBXxZzgiwBAQEDAToxDgULCw4TJQ8FSScHh3IFunCPDAeCX2EDiGyNXgGQcYMq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,803,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="74578424"
Received: from mtv-core-2.cisco.com ([171.68.58.7]) by mtv-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 15:11:17 +0000
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (mcast-linux1.cisco.com [172.27.244.121]) by mtv-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r27FBC3f005711 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Mar 2013 15:11:12 GMT
Received: from mcast-linux1.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r27F9lQ9026206; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:10:02 -0800
Received: (from eckert@localhost) by mcast-linux1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id r27F9lpf026205; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 07:09:47 -0800
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:09:47 -0800
From: Toerless Eckert <eckert@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Subject: Re: Appointment of a Transport Area Director
Message-ID: <20130307150947.GB24221@cisco.com>
References: <033901ce1996$9c8258e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <290E20B455C66743BE178C5C84F124081A49EEF286@EXMB01CMS.surrey.ac.uk> <003301ce19ab$40e6e9a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F787238@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <51363249.1000605@isi.edu> <47029AA2-8072-490A-988A-826577B582B5@tzi.org> <20130307065552.GH20642@cisco.com> <FEE3EC49-FE63-492E-9691-DDD6CE927202@tzi.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FEE3EC49-FE63-492E-9691-DDD6CE927202@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 07 Mar 2013 15:11:22 -0000

> PS.: I just spent a day at CeBIT.  One guy there reported to that he has seen 35000 active devices on his WiFi snooper.
> I'm not quite sure what that means, but he seemed to be implying "at a specific point in time".
> Go congestion control that.  And then "prove" that your solution works.

Bear proof ?

802.11 CSMA/CA does make sure that every participants gets so little bandwidth 
in this situation that L3 congestion control is not the issue.

(I don't have to proof that i am faster than the bear, just that there is somebody slower)

> Somehow, we still seem to be deploying WiFi, nonetheless, and some even consider WiFi a success.

Its being used and continues to make money, and there is nothing else that works better
because otherwise that would have been successfull.

> Would your hypothetical AD waiting for "sufficient work was done" have approved WiFi?  In 1998?

Do you think with your type of AD requirements we would have better WiFi today ?

Seriously, i think you're overthinking it. There are expert group participants, there are WG-Chairs
and there are ADs. I think this discussion circulates way too much around thinking that we must
shift technical expertise two layers up the management chain. Its a nice concept, it gives a warm
and fuzzy community feeling, we had the luxury enjoying it in many areas in the past, but it
does not scale nor is there IMHO any good proof that it works better than what i described
and what commercial companies exercise. In addition i would contend it tends to burn great
technical experts in the AD role. Yes, i can see how its cool to be burned fast with all the
stuff you get to see and judge in an AD role - for a while.

Cheers
    Toerless