Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Wed, 11 July 2018 13:49 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 E9A5B130E19 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 cXT1ja5ANKet for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20CA2130E03 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 06:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1fdFV6-0008KM-Ox; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:49:48 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:49:43 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
cc: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Message-ID: <53A44968B8377095ABB61DEC@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <e0cfcb0c-7b23-9903-cf71-0f4d736bb80b@gmail.com>
References: <CAL02cgQbT8s0493SdbM7Gbw2ZiSV1kMHk+6=Z4BdC2Ky664CNg@mail.gmail.com> <d159dd1f-de0b-d6c5-6430-cd5577e266fd@joelhalpern.com> <20180710144525.GE20282@mx4.yitter.info> <e0cfcb0c-7b23-9903-cf71-0f4d736bb80b@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/abNc0aFYRjaWCn-vmKfd2M3pQb8>
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: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:49:53 -0000
--On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 14:47 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: >... > However, what I'm getting clearly from the last > 24 hours' email is that since we don't yet understand the > problem, it's way too soon to seriously design an > (experimental) solution. Normally, I'd say that was true. But the situation is not normal. We are in a situation in which it seems clear that the thinking that went into draft-thomson-rfcplusplus-label-00 was key to the BOF proposal and that both it and the BOF proposal posit a very specific solution. While I accept Martin's explanation and hence have no reason to believe the posting of that draft at the last minute was intended to disadvantage any other proposed solutions, it does have that effect, an effect that is aggravated by there still being no posted agenda for a BOF that occurs on the first day of the meeting. That leaves us without knowing whether the intention is to discuss the problem or to assume, as the BOF proposal does, that there is a problem that is in need of solutions and that we are discussing solutions (or one specific solution). Perhaps the plan is "both", but, especially with only one possible solution available in I-D form before Monday morning and the amount of discussion about a variety of topics on the list, 90 minutes seems very compressed. Alissa, given that state of affairs and assuming that possible solutions are not going to be ruled out of order in Monday's discussion, can we get blanket permission for late-posting (before Monday) of any draft related to this BOF? I think it is generally accepted that discussing I-Ds, even hastily prepared ones, is usually more productive than discussing partial proposals that go by on mailing lists. And, while the posting cutoff was intended, in part, to allow people adequate time to read and study documents before IETF begins, it seems to me that giving people the weekend (and possibly even part of tomorrow and Friday) is preferable to either giving them zero time (solutions introduced at the BOF itself) or well under 24 hours between whenever I-D postings are allowed again on Monday (the "important dates" page appears to no longer show whether that is, e.g., 00:01 UTC or the starting time of the meeting). best, john
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Richard Barnes
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Paul Hoffman
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Eliot Lear
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Richard Barnes
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Joel M. Halpern
- [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Richard Barnes
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Adrian Farrel
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Andrew G. Malis
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Eric C Rosen
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Richard Barnes
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Bob Hinden
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Richard Barnes
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Joseph Lorenzo Hall
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Joel M. Halpern
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us S Moonesamy
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Joseph Lorenzo Hall
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us John C Klensin
- Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us Alissa Cooper