Re: [newtrk] Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt

Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 12 January 2006 09:14 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EwyWw-0000z5-Tc for newtrk-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:14:03 -0500
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (mailapps.uoregon.edu [128.223.142.45]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA03521 for <newtrk-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:12:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailapps.uoregon.edu (IDENT:U2FsdGVkX1+lMUESvmAHzCRXd3kwMWFcVMsLr4FAIHA@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0C9BD71007930; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:11:13 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5/Submit) id k0C9BDhb007929; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:11:13 -0800
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by mailapps.uoregon.edu (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k0C9B9b2007924 for <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:11:10 -0800
Received: from localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D31B2596EC; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:10:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26859-03; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:10:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.1.160] (163.80-203-220.nextgentel.com [80.203.220.163]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64BCA2596E5; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:10:02 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:11:03 +0100
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
To: David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>, Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>, New Track <newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: [newtrk] Re: IESG comments on draft-ietf-newtrk-decruft-experiment-02.txt
Message-ID: <531E34E5729171DB692C2A84@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <20060112072407.GA13064@nokia.com>
References: <43A6C189.5030808@zurich.ibm.com> <43A7FD75.407@zurich.ibm.com> <8635B5E6C3C54CD0077C4054@B50854F0A9192E8EC6CDA126> <43C371D6.7070001@cisco.com> <3A4840D0F00A6A76B5D64133@svartdal.hjemme.alvestrand.no> <43C398F7.2030103@cisco.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601101345490.1419@netcore.fi> <43C3A08C.3080204@cisco.com> <20060112010657.GL10186@nokia.com> <43C5ADA3.2040508@isi.edu> <20060112072407.GA13064@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88/1238/Wed Jan 11 02:19:06 2006 on mailapps
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Sender: owner-newtrk@lists.uoregon.edu
Precedence: bulk
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


--On onsdag, januar 11, 2006 23:24:07 -0800 David Kessens 
<david.kessens@nokia.com> wrote:

>
> Joe,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 05:15:15PM -0800, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>> I disagree; IMO, the work this represents helps move the chaff out of
>> the way so that the wheat - old wheat and new wheat - is easier to find.
>> Organizing the wheat so it's useful is just as productive - sometimes
>> moreso - as generating new wheat.
>
> The free market (and open source community as well) is way quicker and
> more efficient in determining whether something is historic/obsolete
> than the IETF. People vote with their pocket book and simply abandon
> the protocol when it no longer makes sense. I see very little value
> for us to spend a large amount of time to make a standard officially
> historic years *after* it is already widespread knowledge that a
> (proposed) standard is indeed historic/obsolete.

1) It's not a large amount of time (IMHO). Most important result of the 
experiment.

2) "Widespread" knowledge is not the same as "findable" knowledge.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Either do this work (and now we 
know what size work it is) or abandon the idea that standards-track status 
will ever be made to conform to reality.

WRT workload on the IESG: I think that for this particular document, the 
IESG has spent more energy (by a relatively large factor) on worrying about 
how much this willl cause extra work for the IESG than it has on actually 
processing the document.

I agree with David that asking the IESG to take on more work (to push the 
remaining docs up the track) is a non-starter. The IESG's job in this 
context is (I think) to make it possible for other people to do the job.

                     Harald

.
newtrk resources:_____________________________________________________
web user interface: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk.html
mhonarc archive: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~llynch/newtrk/index.html