Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 19:44 UTC
Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 DAC1612099C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:44:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 vtDzkwV6884J for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bumble.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (bumble.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.25]) (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 A760E1200F5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:44:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC1460106D; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:44:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-14-250.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.14.250]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1978A601108; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 19:44:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a34.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:44:15 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Macabre-Language: 4750bf327ae47870_1573155855437_1326638109
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1573155855437:2059151928
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1573155855436
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B645CA9DFE; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:44:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=1sHHYZZJtQs+5tRWn+MVqXR7N1c=; b=SvbVoHKooKo 8YJxQdejY776mH7DrV/XuVoTK4bmrDHRXR+fe6OWvx6u7NkhcKfmck5gN/QP+Qfu MS6QXChGXsHeLX6znPr/XDKFg/dudrlTX709tQ1MHosowKsuDy9eCENoljlovTx2 aIFXMfGhxYwqAvh3vCrRFnd/dd110K+o=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DDA2A9DF6; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:44:08 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a34
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
Message-ID: <20191107194408.GF12148@localhost>
References: <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com> <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost> <57465486-71b1-a87a-fa8c-bad7157f9025@gmail.com> <3caeb4cf-b92b-99fd-77df-7b1aef3e2979@network-heretics.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3caeb4cf-b92b-99fd-77df-7b1aef3e2979@network-heretics.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s8Mt2RX3Z2_wl31fAJ_9N00KrN4>
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:44:19 -0000
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:50:23PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > On 11/6/19 9:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Two WG chairs is almost the norm these days. But yes, the essence of > > the experiment is to reduce the number of people in the decision > > process - and intentionally lower the bar for Proposed Standard closer > > to how it's defined in RFC2026: > > But 2026 criteria assumed a three-stage standards track. Now we're down to > two stages in theory, and still usually just one stage in practice. As far > as I can tell, getting rid of Draft Standard hasn't done anything to make > Proposed Standard less of a terminal state and more of a stepping-stone. > > [...] > > This is where the biggest disconnect between 2026 and reality is. If the > reality is that industry is going to deploy implementations at Proposed > Standard or sooner (and as far as I can tell, that's been reality for as > long as there's been an Internet "industry"), it makes sense for IETF to > recognize that and react accordingly. +1 > If we want there to be a prototype "just for testing" status, it should > probably be called something other than Proposed - the name has come to mean > something else in IETF context. And we should deliberately change one or We have it: it's Experimental. But it's essentially seen as a negative, thus underused. > more protocol elements to make the standard incompatible with > already-deployed implementations. The trick would be to keep that > information from leaking out beforehand. Maybe give the RSE /N/ options > for things to change that are selected at random, similarly to the way > nomcoms are selected. Are you proposing that there be a required backwards-incompatible change so as to force... what exactly? That the old thing does not get deployed? I assume it will mostly discourage use of the new track. The risk with deploying prototypes is that a backwards-incompatible change will be needed, so perhaps early reviews should focus only on identifying features at risk of such changes and requiring that the experimental protocol cover upgrades or reduce the risk. > Also, the WG completion, IESG approval and RFC publication dates of a new > standard should be determined well in advance so that vendors can tailor > their product development schedules to those dates. This would mean > holding WGs, IESG, and the RSE to a schedule (gasp!) once there was > confidence that the document would be standardized (another argument for > broad review well prior to Last Call.) I'm not saying that there could > absolutely be no slippage, but reality should be close enough that > developers can plan by it. Maybe, yeah, for high-profile protocols (e.g., TLS). > But my guess is that the only way to get buy-in for Prototype specifications > would be to convincingly promise faster development. Yes. That includes faster RFC-Editor turnarounds. If we remove the other bottlenecs, then RFC-Editor queue time will become the next bottleneck to address. Nico --
- NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback NomCom Chair 2019
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kyle Rose
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Paul Wouters
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Livingood, Jason
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Randy Bush
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Yoav Nir
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Stephen Farrell
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Stephen Farrell
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Brian E Carpenter
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kyle Rose
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Tim Wicinski
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Rob Sayre
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Bob Hinden
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Donald Eastlake
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Keith Moore
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback John Levine
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Salz, Rich
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Stewart Bryant
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Kyle Rose
- AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Communi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Mark Nottingham
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Rob Sayre
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Terry Manderson
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Salz, Rich
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Keith Moore
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Leif Johansson
- Quality of Directorate reviews Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Ralph Droms
- RE: Quality of Directorate reviews Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Alexey Melnikov
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Salz, Rich
- RE: Quality of Directorate reviews Paul Wouters
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Carsten Bormann
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Ralph Droms
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Ralph Droms
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Stewart Bryant
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Stewart Bryant
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Bob Hinden
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Bob Hinden
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Salz, Rich
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Bob Hinden
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Jared Mauch
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Salz, Rich
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Stewart Bryant
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Leif Johansson
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Salz, Rich
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Salz, Rich
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Leif Johansson
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Leif Johansson
- Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate re… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Leif Johansson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Bob Hinden
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Bob Hinden
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… tom petch
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Stewart Bryant
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Salz, Rich
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Bob Hinden
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Nico Williams
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Christian Huitema
- Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: Thou… Jari Arkko
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Keith Moore
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Eliot Lear
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Ole Troan
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Salz, Rich
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Michael Richardson
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Andrew G. Malis
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Bob Hinden
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Keith Moore
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Michael Richardson
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback John Leslie
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Keith Moore
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Michael Richardson
- Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Com… Keith Moore
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback John C Klensin
- Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback Mary B
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Carsten Bormann
- Re: Author and attendance measurements [Was: Re: … Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Julian Reschke
- Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorat… Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Keith Moore
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Michael Richardson
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Quality of Directorate reviews Mark Nottingham