Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 19:00 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 5DA591209D0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:00:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BuYXMOTA-jJU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:00:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.127]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03C641209DF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 11:00:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050096.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xA5Iw0p8013602; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:59:18 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=rm5ocHcd80yIlzBKshewXKj78S0W0cb8tzpYXS8nxIU=; b=PHBNOlEoXq0U4LRzNhfoQF8bSbMT0hkjNlVGMfxADCr4Tp8X4+Zbw5Gl/PgR8wEY19Sg 4b1OmfdBlVNZpSDgk8Gs//fezgONaEaZzwYMogM9q/nTe+3ajKOBwLwTFR8BPi8mqXZx 4X2KBcaOqlzLgt/75hg0f6b3ybmR7G4aCvxJivvVSgAWTXjYK8kVpkfEvrYymPjHg82S 9po5YsajOuiIUyxR4nqw3MC6tEwPAjp1/S7EJCIe30j/aHB2ZL9cdz9VfQ8Wk6NupkP2 Ayavguqidcex5pmWMubi4QX+SQ3HP/k2sR1E8mrJq11yhAY+fE1KkMysY+fVNvYZW6FW 0g==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint8 (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [96.6.114.122] (may be forged)) by m0050096.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2w1498euft-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 18:59:18 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xA5Im2jD022764; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:59:17 -0500
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.53]) by prod-mail-ppoint8.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2w154xae4q-4 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 05 Nov 2019 13:59:16 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:59:03 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 13:59:02 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Thread-Topic: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback
Thread-Index: AQHVkllZtlByHExQzkS7nb/noDw4vqd7Ei2AgABDYACAAAVVgIAAZu0A//+s7wCAAaJrAP//uYiAgAB3/AD//67NAA==
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:59:01 +0000
Message-ID: <327DD4FA-D5C8-4CC2-A849-73D6CCCC69D3@akamai.com>
References: <7601008E-0E4A-42DD-9D5D-667A7603CE38@akamai.com> <20191105184940.DF6AEE6A701@ary.local>
In-Reply-To: <20191105184940.DF6AEE6A701@ary.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1f.0.191103
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.34.75]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <060F42A39303BC44B1D2E86B6AF6F287@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-05_07:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=789 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1911050155
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,1.0.8 definitions=2019-11-05_07:2019-11-05,2019-11-05 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=772 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1011 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1908290000 definitions=main-1911050156
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ffG023gKdkgbwWdrnQde-d2cPVk>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 19:00:26 -0000

>    I wouldn't think that adding people would help much since a lot of the
    work isn't divisible.  ADs traditionally read all of the drafts, not
    just the ones in their area.

Does every AD read all the drafts?  I don't know.  But changing the process to say one AD from each area would reduce the load.

> The number of communication paths grows as the square of
    the number of people.
   
Second time this has been mentioned.  There's a huge difference between information-theory and practice.
  
>    The way to have less work is to publish fewer RFCs, or perhaps shorter
    RFCs.

That is certainly *A* way, but not *THE* way.