Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 21 October 2021 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E096E3A0C2F for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30VgktoNWGtc for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5D003A0C2B for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s1so1264914plg.12 for <>; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dz3Td2J9eiKuiOLnAwqcU56wI4BgZvLyE29Z/Nw3fXY=; b=F0NjAz+jV9VQKfigZKpSdmFN4BdzW9QxSgTYLOyoBIHKjew7yYyMukvxoun7ZpJ9Pz irTe6rWd3Ogc8n/zOtQaSQ/RKJfq3tnJKT6xlmmZ/eah3rLYxiDv3XGTYdJj4xUydPmL gFkasrywYSugSMOL50JSN2xJT91auPPKu28U7mvNVu3KauGiWcWNoRdxWF+u5Dz7M3hr SQ9JBQJPZdliggFCx1/h3+Z2DKE8UKsVNQ0V1nf+c/HDIAzTWmB9VP/sj4duZlYPZt6J z2ZqmtMq5ruuBGb5ZRsknzEeYXikG70iZAveyKO49SDa87WYTQ6YlhJJlSiwM9YUXGpb WVjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=dz3Td2J9eiKuiOLnAwqcU56wI4BgZvLyE29Z/Nw3fXY=; b=patYocq780bEhbYieWkBhTtXUof+xuWQm1Fn8IloAlW9yP7HOAhQEO5I8kC0iTIlaA 2RB0IozSEpBAqSf7l8k0vn+H+BAxsFAwgiPFnxQPovlpuoWWzTGlzegTJvCABQL9yE1C QJSyC75XU5Ji/n+ePWSiRDjU48M+v8I+YlMB4LDemrAdwWU7IM7+w624K7zcUnbc4V4G ofJci99Q2fZZJC4jumav+vNn3gBOJW7mrVxY/84M3esLhkqim28urCb2YwfWn7i+kkI4 l46ffYOLyXXVbe7e7oFhMau9poH/Zx1CHQXYy/tsNAZ76IA1P+CfvgBJdwix4pYT65yH QuSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532dSIfcLy0oi8DKwC+qHBvtj6ZZZ29K8jVjTtq55q3TAJJaIKEi VUyGFrh1mL9AHcioiKQbXNiSRAMfU/D2Sw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzeN5a9VMkCZAugDfMDI7g1cKTSETAjBbGoHTMq0gnvWEc6kV+c6TDzhcGGaiMfJlk7lkTKdg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1a85:: with SMTP id ng5mr5082202pjb.43.1634850445959; Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e003:102d:e801:db7:d041:a2d:ce65? ([2406:e003:102d:e801:db7:d041:a2d:ce65]) by with ESMTPSA id bp19sm6539902pjb.46.2021. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Oct 2021 14:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Workload constants [was I-D Action: draft-rsalz-termlimits-00.txt]
To: Barry Leiba <>, Keith Moore <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
References: <20211021005426.639E92B1D176@ary.qy> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:07:20 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 21:07:33 -0000

On 22-Oct-21 06:43, Barry Leiba wrote:
>> If we think we need more churn in ADs, the solution is some combination
>> of finding/grooming more good candidates and making it easier for people
>> to serve, so that the nomcom has better candidates to choose from.
> I think this is a really key point: I would rather see us put the
> effort into figuring out how to scale the AD job so that more good
> people are willing and able to do it.  I think that's critical to the
> IETF's long-term viability.

This. And responding to another point that Keith made, *why* have there
been approximately 120 active WGs for more than the past ten years? Why
that number, rather than (say) 50 or 250?

Why do we publish about 300 RFCs per year, rather than (say) 100 or 500?
(There seems to be a slight downward trend in that number, but that's
the 20-year average. The average since 1969 is about 170 per year.)

Are these natural constants or what? How many IETF WGs and RFCs does
the Internet really need?

I think we need to understand our own dynamics better before trying to
fix them.