IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)

Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com> Thu, 24 December 2015 01:54 UTC

Return-Path: <eburger@standardstrack.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C3E1ACEEB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:54:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no
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 DdbXyTxFWtUh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:54:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from biz104.inmotionhosting.com (biz104.inmotionhosting.com [173.247.247.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48F1B1ACEF4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:54:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=standardstrack.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type; bh=9R6xn3x2iaUV48LTqsTBJSzQr+C8usXWn+MpYa3Gr7o=; b=l/0KuYXL2UFAzcw2jPmX83WGeET6Xaq4aEWhzZXM8ClTsofGYvL7mEy2+mGoCv0/XECwzTtuYPsdzH/3lsJ8CqFD3mGDa0otD8/zAFvQval/XNjOFf9Rd097hZrPRUafQHViacUBo1oF4qT453rOMaTNVIo1/G9kS6bZxZCBMrU=;
Received: from ip68-100-196-239.dc.dc.cox.net ([68.100.196.239]:55028 helo=[192.168.15.111]) by biz104.inmotionhosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from <eburger@standardstrack.com>) id 1aBv6X-0002N2-QV for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:54:12 -0800
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B5D75E9C-161A-46D0-AA7B-15B18E2CCD36"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: Cross-area review (was Meeting rotation)
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Eric Burger <eburger@standardstrack.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0C2DE@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:54:10 -0500
Message-Id: <603ABACE-C733-4455-B627-A5A5E2A73B5F@standardstrack.com>
References: <CAC8QAcf=yAAGVN35tUCpX38y6_qGstGhK4iYuyhK94LVWrz-+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAHw9_iL+eAFtGHKXVWMHaqi=3mGO9H1CfE4e=yZCekE9UzPR6A@mail.gmail.c om> <E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <7A7519D5-FD9B-4F4D-A7E5-AC047F684623@netapp.com> <EMEW3|02dedadbe5e65aac9732e9359a7c2dberBHGjK03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E7D065D8-CADC-4A65-8AC7-6ECE9CF63D4F@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAHw9_iKtck6ZSp6ofNFKLRj7-o3_UR42McTNQqsqCXfcduxAeA@mail.gmail.c om> <5674460C.1000107@krsek.cz> <4B81FA54-F79C-42CB-8024-1C653B0C9406@cisco.com> <20151218233645.GG3294@mx2.yitter.info> <56749EA4.6040801@gmail.com> <20151219000743.GH3294@mx2.yitter.info> <5676EBE9.8050304@dcrocker.net> <970B54F5-2422-4588-A95A-63E5144A8D35@gmail.com> <56789BBB.7020709@dcrocker.net> <4AE6DC68FC9B8CA113CBCDFA@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5678D728.2080404@dcrocker.net> <5226A23C6E26B0350DE715AE@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <D6278A46-19AB-48D8-B55A-48FF51B7E0EC@piuha.net> <2508B3C2-8F5F-4417-8052-E73B6F34BED1@standardstrack.com> <567ACCEE.9030503@dcr ocker.net> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630797A0C2DE@mbx-03.WIN.NOMINUM.COM>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - biz104.inmotionhosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - standardstrack.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: biz104.inmotionhosting.com: authenticated_id: eburger+standardstrack.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qLrloUIUvt0sng9zAG18yuBZhdo>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:54:13 -0000

I would posit there is another dynamic I think we are missing. A lot of my academic work around Cyclomatic Complexity is about relating the complexity of code to latent defects in programs AFTER PEOPLE THINK THEY FOUND ALL OF THE BUGS.

I think the analogy here is that AD review, cross-area review, and sacrifices to Amaterasu will not find ALL of the bugs in a specification. The best we can hope for is to do best practices to keep the bugs to an acceptable, low level.

> On Dec 23, 2015, at 8:46 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> 
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> AD review appears to miss far more than it catches.  That's seems to be
>> difficult for some folk to accept, and so they point to the individual
>> exceptions rather than the longer pattern of misses.  (By way of some
>> very strategic examples, consider IPv6 and DNSSec and email security and
>> key management and...)
> 
> Do you have data on this?   This doesn't match my experience.   I've found AD review to be very helpful.   It's certainly inconvenient, but I've seen AD reviews catch lots of things that were worth catching.   I would not go so far as to claim that my anecdote is more valid than yours, but I think that if we are going to make claims like this, we should probably back them up with data.   The current AD review process didn't just happen.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email