IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] what metric replaces page-count?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 12 April 2021 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0BD3A15CC; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.103
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" 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 tSG04pnm-wj7; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92B1F3A15C9; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF06AF407BF; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785C4F407BF for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Authentication-Results: rfcpa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fm2lVdFoHQRj for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dog.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (dog.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.48]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A316F407BB for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
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 9C5F5781785; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-11-78.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.11.78]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2A9EC78174A; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:12:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 100.96.11.78 (trex/6.1.1); Mon, 12 Apr 2021 23:12:39 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Callous-Soft: 5eb717ce6f92b510_1618269159442_1550903234
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1618269159442:3265499569
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1618269159441
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E29947E5FC; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:38 -0700 (PDT)
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; s=cryptonector.com; bh=GldoHCYLa1MgSn dgVufL/lDx+Wo=; b=pMDyvpgmqgQDQPQhBJ6bTzsH4edoK6H9+LlHFJcjs/cenc MuLwTCR37+ygMR6Rl38UmIfFlYMT+Vt4PVWtUvhGonRwC/0u+vU+ZK+s0zIVrQcP vec9+u/qv8WJLeQLzB+/8GzLNQcwKsaB+NMq4Nt2BsXcebH0iGl9eQQbTgW/k=
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-a47.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C394E81760; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 16:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:12:32 -0500
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a47
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Message-ID: <20210412231231.GY9612@localhost>
References: <20557.1618171860@localhost> <F35C8691-ADA2-4DEC-B24A-0DFB5B76567F@tzi.org> <66fd7812-4d2c-bf9d-d4bf-16c501754d7e@gmail.com> <CACB24MtXPct5iOmYSgG5yQVt=-y5=L1nXmkqb4=TsPNfgsQihQ@mail.gmail.com> <4915F484-A2C4-44B0-BAF8-B3CF09D9450F@tzi.org> <CAHw9_iL6wn83-W9t2H1P0o9k3mvir=WdKU164=C24Y53UsiFiw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHw9_iL6wn83-W9t2H1P0o9k3mvir=WdKU164=C24Y53UsiFiw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] [Tools-discuss] what metric replaces page-count?
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: rfc-interest <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>

On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 01:12:16PM -0400, Warren Kumari wrote:
> The tone of "Time to move on from tired, inaccurate metaphors" smacks of
> stating a position as fact, and that disagreement means that you are stuck
> in the dark ages / ab absurdo.
> 
>                                   [...] - but I'm disappointed that,
> increasingly, if you don't agree with someone in the IETF, the tone pivots
> to implying that there is something wrong with them, or that they are
> stupid, or similar...

Thanks for the reminder that this doesn't just happen on the general
list.  I wish we could stop arguing in this way.  If you catch me doing
it, please let me know.

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email