Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sun, 06 January 2013 08:41 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.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 A6A8B21F8797 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:41:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 AIoeTdtb6-W4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:41:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f169.google.com (mail-vc0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E848421F87AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id gb23so17963879vcb.14 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:41:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=U5gyhwPrbjYAzxSjahPu/itdTEceYwX2cexLjDWpevw=; b=rwzoZyjReAXK+HZu/r++RWEcayiLovb+EGr/4oQLRBDIIM822omtDj8DgmNmcUL6t3 1m8iHozbEfsTs0GaSIQibMUbchIOwAvwjK+M+J+R8G07EKDsi3QssfUUIHxy/mlhneJ8 I34v1veENFp80UrqeSzT4ICEMvHiP/hyFpC8wLlBOKjvuzgNDxjeSqeRLULNGUCzEhqj yGf4zJ2Ghk2d0OySpTKESa1KZqzg8AKvF0Xtdsy1is9nn6DJ98Z9E56u0lAb76uH3qWf oAlxO3VqxQYWJCkTu12jCiAQPxmRNzsfKU1Ptdz4OJgdIks9+wJ+yg5ORCHGO5mf6X+m GVGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.58.252.72 with SMTP id zq8mr83419911vec.20.1357461663384; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Jan 2013 00:41:03 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 09:41:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ8_GgVeapUKefFMqOvwOo00X8_rFDWMR0vb-Zvu_p=yT3A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: petithug@acm.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <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: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:41:04 -0000

Hi Marc Petit-Huguenin ,

>I read the responses so far, and what can be said today is that there is 2
philosophies, with supporters in both camps.  The goal of the IETF is to make
the Internet work better, and I do believe that RFC 2119 is one of the
fundamental tool to reach this goal, but having two ways to use it does not
help this goal.

I like the approach, and agree with you that we need a solution in
IETF which still is not solved or ignored by participants fo some
reasons. However, I agree of a survey or an experiment what ever we
call it, that makes IETF reflects to the RFC2119 performance on the
end-user of such product implementation of RFC protocols. I think many
old participants already have good experience to inform us of some
reality of IETF standards' end-user production.

AB