Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 03 December 2012 14:40 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 6DA5E21F843D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:40:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ORYxDwVIpUdi for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:40:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E7821F843A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 06:40:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qB3Edvr2004558; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:39:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54893544.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.53.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0CA924A; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:39:56 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBr_0x6NcKJ4OQO=GH4msuXxZ1W_ECW57-3FZAirWTzmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:39:55 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <011F7799-E011-4EC3-82C8-E7E6747C868C@tzi.org>
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BC5DA0.2030506@cisco.com> <50BC839A.1070503@cs.tcd.ie> <CAC4RtVBr_0x6NcKJ4OQO=GH4msuXxZ1W_ECW57-3FZAirWTzmw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>, IETF-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: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:40:57 -0000

On Dec 3, 2012, at 15:25, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> But code that's written as part of a rote process, just to achieve
> another check-box on the shepherd writeup and justify special handling
> is not likely to provide any of those benefits.

+1.

As somebody who tends to think about security implications, the first thing that came to my mind when reading this was how this experiment would be used to game the system.  The results are so obvious I won't bother to write them down.

Society has a lot of experience with cases where, what used to be useful, but gameable indicators, are turned into measuring instruments with great effect.
Analogous to all these cases, I think the main effect of this proposal would be to destroy the remnant of usefulness that "running code" has in our current (living) process.

Grüße, Carsten