IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Tue, 10 July 2018 17:08 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E2F13114C for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:08:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 PzrLDFCw7cxF for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:08:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE99A129385 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b15-v6so43977456oib.10 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5pSkjpaVpNw1ckeP1+W/oK0uZnb0sPfc12Wcu5BW/so=; b=k2f9USz4cuIjMz9OnlgWw+n+bbZZi77pHxfwceuJ9b8yNf1g+czIvymrt0la4XAqrk +0sKur/NuLLMhmCBYnd1eEQ6fb3c5sccuXHeqfCchgDW/e2fRga2VBllsy2IIdW4+yST 2iTLtX9Ol2cDdwpHzcLFAeMDQrDdJWNkwZZ2SXsy5QhQsfplTGzrKYtozkY4fKDV066Y lA85OcUDfAMRGB3z8vY5FUqlExEegol5LqbrNSMROHuoyYYrH0G23DWBU3tN+4/B5OZ9 ZqxfHkZZd1/9Yjl4PZkr78PiFB3k7tderUfZ5HEm7g27yB8ENtCxX+inkjuiY21CEXto Ub0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5pSkjpaVpNw1ckeP1+W/oK0uZnb0sPfc12Wcu5BW/so=; b=sUg1ofFupctGccfdcq4aqwfJw1gs6SUBfEGdLLmA6g7qxjsGj3gKd2Y+3l36ACtiLx djO7Pwomp1uGrQN5hjDSFp6DBchVYGmPa6R1KAJpI2rwJbGuOsDDZXl7anvaY7V2pLaX wFf/sm+axR2+sQehj8PJU+KYHTOVTBqIcFctghZJjx9Y79i6y6JyRlIDiu3j3xe2ATzw l9CLCLFIQ0eoTvQUzFMdI13u9bDtNsigcX5qNicHhg4e8y0AC1e5XKaiuHg/2VmCPbVl CfBK+ZoT/VYMdSEP39XEMyVoK+lzcvk7HJTeLsnb3MXGeOGe8lyUaKkcIXge8kQ6BxTA nnCg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0CSwAGL0Lrm/ZAG6rZUlMSvNd25H3WmQ6gEYt4RfH/1dVTyfTA zeLRhba55EM5e3jaREGVAElgay1F+TiXTwwUXPY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpdKLe2/URS+4YX2ADkSIyooe5wFX27mleLiqsz/M40tczTcU+dkztUq0OZ6B+ZMgS+BYAmEOBY2b/LM97q/03Q=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:dec6:: with SMTP id v189-v6mr29985223oig.98.1531242499087; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a9d:30c2:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 10:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2CDA19FD-816B-4B4E-9F64-0DA494EB8B1A@vpnc.org>
References: <CAL02cgQbT8s0493SdbM7Gbw2ZiSV1kMHk+6=Z4BdC2Ky664CNg@mail.gmail.com> <d159dd1f-de0b-d6c5-6430-cd5577e266fd@joelhalpern.com> <20180710144525.GE20282@mx4.yitter.info> <2CDA19FD-816B-4B4E-9F64-0DA494EB8B1A@vpnc.org>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:07:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU1x=-SB6v467W_ESwdezsGvu+uScFL4Wb0BS6ebXhXDzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Cc: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003922e20570a82d60"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/_VxSs4rqCBdudyCEaccuyCoBrUU>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:08:22 -0000

Paul’s statement:


> We have not seen any suggestion of how such an empirical evaluation would
> take place. We have not seen any suggestion for, even if we could measure
> the problem today and a reduction of the measured problem, how much
> reduction would be labeled "success".


Really says it all - other than anecdotes and opinions, there has been no
hard evidence of a “problem” that a reasonable third party could look at
and evaluate, nor have there been any proposals as how to reasonably
determine the results of the experiment in three years, were it to be held.

I think the most of productive use of our time during the BoF session will
be to discuss how to gather real evidence of a problem, and how to evaluate
the effects of any resulting IETF actions. Only after we have agreement on
the methodology, and carry it out, will it be time to discuss what we
should or should not do based on the results.

Cheers,
Andy

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status