IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 24 June 2008 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietf-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8733A6A13; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D8E3A6A01 for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.348
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GMggxZ3eM+la for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s27.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s27.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.102]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5BDC3A6A13 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU137-W48 ([65.55.111.71]) by blu0-omc2-s27.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:32:36 -0700
Message-ID: <BLU137-W48BD07C460755CDF698DF693A10@phx.gbl>
X-Originating-IP: [24.16.124.122]
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Subject: RE: Appeal against IESG blocking DISCUSS on draft-klensin-rfc2821bis
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:32:37 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <BAY0-MC6-F20rW5VnzG0022c82a@bay0-mc6-f20.bay0.hotmail.com>
References: <BLU137-W4906E79A3BA47548403D8493A10@phx.gbl> <BAY0-MC6-F20rW5VnzG0022c82a@bay0-mc6-f20.bay0.hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jun 2008 15:32:36.0938 (UTC) FILETIME=[87B022A0:01C8D60F]
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1646532038=="
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org

> We have a way to count DISCUSS positions, but we do not have a way to 
> figure out what percentage of them are perceived as "late surprises" 
> by the community.  So, while we are taking action in an attempt to 
> make things better, we do not have a way to measure our success or 
> failure beyond community perception.  Suggestions on making this more 
> objective and less subjective are greatly appreciated.
> 
> Russ

I agree that it might be hard to measure the effect of particular actions (e.g. changes in
procedures).  However, it is *not* hard to measure overall trends in performance, and
to break these trends down between areas and types of documents. 

My understanding is that the Simcoe dataset continues beyond 2001, and that with some
relatively modest effort, a detailed analysis could be produced quantifying how the IETF
has performed.  This would give us a window into what the actual results have been. 

_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email