Re: Qualifying for NomCom

"HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 06:25 UTC

Return-Path: <tony@att.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 1A46D12D16A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 IRPh7jdWeFLl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.149.140]) (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 733E412D15A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 23:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0053301.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id u382OFgv024343; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:28:09 -0400
Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by mx0a-00191d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 22615gjf6j-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:28:08 -0400
Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u382S7Oh000704; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:28:07 -0400
Received: from mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.240]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u382S4AQ000685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:28:04 -0400
Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.145]) by mlpi408.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Fri, 8 Apr 2016 02:27:52 GMT
Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRCG.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.7.206]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAA.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.145]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 22:27:51 -0400
From: "HANSEN, TONY L" <tony@att.com>
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
Thread-Topic: Qualifying for NomCom
Thread-Index: AQHRkPkBaE3TgFgCo0Odl4x3Th89cJ9/E2cAgAABUgCAAAB+AIAABFuAgAAma4CAAAS3AIAAAzOA///JioCAAEPugP//wCuAgABM04D///guAA==
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 02:27:51 +0000
Message-ID: <6012C604-0922-4582-A505-F7934B5FD903@att.com>
References: <CAL0qLwY0FuDp5=RMFEhUMtkK=XNDxX2dogvVY7+OSy88jrrvOQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1=SYpo-CiHoc07Ukb04Kb1LGV2=BPPyRLUsaqyLM9Hbwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwbhYRqw7fXHzYY0=W-CpmeHeDdaZx3z2Qg0cA2aMrmVwg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1nqmC7NJyg2M6Na8vUj8T-qObO-1gHFEXZzrobb3oOQhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAL0qLwZHGa5OvSmZ=bTd6AWchsm4r=QaJn2nPqD+YjeWPmH9pA@mail.gmail.com> <24691.1460062367@obiwan.sandelman.ca> <5706CC94.3080804@gmail.com> <CAL0qLwYvCpL9wwHL0E33HRbMvcckpad=gV-VYgAomJpCdiSrpg@mail.gmail.com> <5E36120B-6D4E-4C0D-9905-2C698455D395@att.com> <CAL0qLwak6GRDYAcYqdOewoSmRj6DP5ptQKjqXkOedBaHcKC7WA@mail.gmail.com> <60B61524-EFF7-4489-A0C7-AA4A139FEF6C@att.com> <CAL0qLwYDW_zwfdr4-2=r0vt2Cb1wNFm+-aog0Wubu+8PbaYWEw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYDW_zwfdr4-2=r0vt2Cb1wNFm+-aog0Wubu+8PbaYWEw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.110.241.40]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6012C60409224582A505F7934B5FD903attcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-RSA-Inspected: yes
X-RSA-Classifications: public
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2016-04-08_03:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1603180000 definitions=main-1604080036
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z7JfYrGcUVB2qpuFnSjH4o4Ahes>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 06:25:07 -0000

I don't know. It seems like it depends on the outcome of the experiment as to what the next step should be. It may be obvious at that point what the answer should be, but not what was specified in section 2. I don't want us to be overly constrained in our choices.

There's actually another choice that is not specified: it was a mistake to do this experiment and that the rules should remain the same as they are now and not change.

Here's my formulation of the 4 choices:

*) We learned enough to say that no change need to be made to the current rules.
*) We learned some things and need to run another experiment with different parameters.
*) We learned enough to know what the change to the current rules is that needs to be made, either
-) as specified in section 2 or
-) some other formulation.

Tony

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com<mailto:superuser@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com<mailto:tony@att.com>>
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org<mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:20 PM, HANSEN, TONY L <tony@att.com<mailto:tony@att.com>> wrote:
No, outcome 1 says to use the criteria in section 2 directly as specified there. Outcome 4 lets us twiddle it.

Wouldn't we want to repeat the experiment with the twiddling before making it part of the BCP?  That's outcome 2.

-MSK