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

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Mon, 03 December 2012 16:21 UTC

Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
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 2B93021F8447 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:21:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.842
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.842 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 d2+6wjWIGYco for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.painless-security.com (mail.painless-security.com [23.30.188.241]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9558F21F843A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (c-98-217-126-210.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [98.217.126.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.painless-security.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BEAD2003E; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:19:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 3B9F8420E; Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:21:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Subject: Re: Idea for a process experiment to reward running code...
References: <50BA64AB.3010106@cs.tcd.ie> <50BC401C.8020101@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <50BC86B7.1010706@gmail.com> <1354545525.11916.744.camel@mightyatom> <CAC4RtVC1VhJjhdPNuzoE+BQcm-krm6=RLSxxsMp56GDVa3csnw@mail.gmail.com> <50BCBD04.40505@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 11:21:12 -0500
In-Reply-To: <50BCBD04.40505@cs.tcd.ie> (Stephen Farrell's message of "Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:53:56 +0000")
Message-ID: <tslmwxvayyv.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, 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 16:21:14 -0000

>>>>> "Stephen" == Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> writes:

    Stephen> On 12/03/2012 02:50 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
    >> I'd really prefer if we'd talk about open source being desirable,
    >> but not having it be necessary.

    Stephen> Yep. I got another comment to that effect as well.  I'll
    Stephen> try address that (but that's not done yet).

For myself, I think the requirement for open-source is very good for
this experiment, or something like it.

People can examine the open-source implementation and consider the
question of whether the implementation explores enough of the edge cases
that a process short-cut is appropriate.  I think that's important in
this, so I'd be a lot more comfortable with this with an open-source
requirement.