Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]

Keith Moore <> Fri, 08 November 2019 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EC3120C89 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:34:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l2kvvk8qyLpr for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2F19120C86 for <>; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 11:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1746F210B8; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:34:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:34:11 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=NPYpDiAa/4g6/oaLfny89i/foaKDQRpFk0pM+Qf1M ao=; b=UrfCWyzES/B00GikKnm3TgUhTxtsr1K+GzWGF/MiXl2RFhKQDYL6XT92I 6+qkkuZKgzc7+gdLTuG2xdDriQg21Pz8YXCEoFjNgUDlI1fQaly69YQRimp2tzb4 VYQdiBin4tXwV7ixDyx7lJ7IDeOOoa9SIrvdSLivV8kW4xMJ6EOJyawEyV/6as3u WkIO4d2waAS0xtgqcUHbvr2Uimvj/tNWu7K5EFVw6GvzduuJsf8raHqCBqWbPBcx IsGNpLuHCeut3UqQcLHwW0qgFknBjcgyQLR+wJ9Vcx9mTOPhDv3WLzo/8B5J7AWu O03qijKdhdGLNGO2K49OCSYBn3YBA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MsPFXRKqi2Ct1rmRf0qvCrro2mx_FZxftR0F6JtsQS7Pvt71IS6CqQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvuddguddvkecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesth ejredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvihhthhcuofhoohhrvgcuoehmohhorhgvsehnvght fihorhhkqdhhvghrvghtihgtshdrtghomheqnecukfhppedutdekrddvvddurddukedtrd duheenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgv rhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MsPFXfIq3-oBzpA4W68w1D70eizx8FzYv1deUVhsWYxfSlZ91kpM9g> <xmx:MsPFXd-fFZeuNmqfjOVwyePsehKmcUFaeJhk3p1WX53vtrb4OhgusQ> <xmx:MsPFXdUx7RZmw7k3Gd8dtWlqZYAMINjU8IR5dX2_j-6rLNX2WM6J3A> <xmx:M8PFXfAx-Jkm4K6cHWIotDdoddmKoqNztYivrnn6Vy-B7zlk1eWPVw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 480E280059; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:34:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: AD workload [was Re: NomCom 2019 Call for Community Feedback]
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:34:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 19:34:13 -0000

On 11/8/19 2:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> And again - this is all procedural, no change to IETF rules is needed. I begin to realise that the IESG's workload is in its own hands, and we (all of us who've served in the IESG over the last 20 years) have to share the blame for current practice.

Something I realized long ago is that IETF community expectations are at 
least as influential as the rules, probably moreso.

As long as the community expects that any working group that has support 
will be approved, that working groups can stay alive as long as they 
keep producing documents, and that any document that a working group 
produces should be approved, the workload problems will continue no 
matter how IESG manages its own process.

And every time someone points out that IESG is overloaded, most of the 
proposed "solutions" seem to have the intent, or at least effect, of 
further reducing document quality.

Maybe it's just me, but I keep thinking that the best way for IETF to 
serve the Internet is to produce fewer documents of higher quality and 
greater relevance.