Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 10 July 2018 22:03 UTC

Return-Path: <rlb@ipv.sx>
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 59BD013118A for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.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 1m5T5gpSQcck for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22d.google.com (mail-oi0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22d]) (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 8AA4F130E5D for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id k81-v6so45620491oib.4 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipv-sx.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=f9iB3ir2/Fy55wQv+F8sgxdwD5IrOLlKpOK9CWqu/9E=; b=GD/d942bR87PU+97a7bSVEtuS9D/suvWegzypJuKKo7CE/KBzZAAm14DKCnYkPC9Tn Q+jcr8/2k1EuUrjtW1p0006lWzKk/zHALQBh6TdK4iuBFNdQUy1HIyAIkepxsyFn+cr3 WwhJ0nUIbZonEG4F+YgnxuozzMctuD+/HQ14qM8awguXLLMokqPP6rZxCNdBOtLSCCrJ PuNiCljx0djrcMXye1dwV5q8UfkrU8LDWw7Fljy64yxozSvX0oPh60I1oCCxaCYIpi3C lSY/h/fD38i88WAsDmTt0oQsoZCzmu6AwZXYpkUfS6FIL6RquOaOQlL9P+Gm5zDAHMh9 2xTw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=f9iB3ir2/Fy55wQv+F8sgxdwD5IrOLlKpOK9CWqu/9E=; b=d1VR+2tWSbqSYdRdclcNnR7W5qr5vKoJh4PYPGln6Hi2G/RohsAfJsO75xUGx1T7+X n7iL8jX885NeCv9Z1UeSL6sKs+6dj7PnghGUb6vQ9TncH1bmEaxDSDh0l54XEkJQdjGd +KCXhAokD9wjsSbDWXfyy9DI9z/CZkfiI//YJV2QQdNT80Zfcwido3yTG8XLv1YNGgKW qn7kxFILBK55uAZOpuWyX2yFsyc7/ZwMlJd3RngPh2kmBc8IZJu8IL6gfXjl4mApyTzw KgBCQOj4Tm6cO12l2tpjjuaxhpBQbfRQygOM/3RWumbO8wh0pIQ6/l5mgF3/dUVfkWKA q4mQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E35bjp2rSV/K083NSnmEVFSdEnieddF7VuG2pyyc9TLqCQSdoRb Mg1C92Ok7xp9y7vzXqIp5ei9GQ0vlonpvO8NBzIlGw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfblC/l7KpVXIWm3fYwTuncVRDllpe2JVGRiKarPY0ApCS3BNyPQVNFQAZzgCtw4RA6zre4UaE4w63WDdfftvs=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:d088:: with SMTP id j8-v6mr30763783oiy.276.1531260210623; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL02cgQbT8s0493SdbM7Gbw2ZiSV1kMHk+6=Z4BdC2Ky664CNg@mail.gmail.com> <d159dd1f-de0b-d6c5-6430-cd5577e266fd@joelhalpern.com> <CAL02cgSoRyRaR+_s3jne=2593f_mtntm-v7Nn=5rDs1_r96pfQ@mail.gmail.com> <639B8766-A030-490D-8431-C3F9F3EAFCB4@gmail.com> <CAL02cgQQPcoaQqz5XiUYH7DeUvBM617ZjxTVtrEJ68yEwz0pcg@mail.gmail.com> <8B48E5E5-90DC-423F-83C7-9B51A853A1A8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B48E5E5-90DC-423F-83C7-9B51A853A1A8@gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 18:03:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQ2EH_MsnjjWrC+a9KzczJk3f3ySuUUCFV2gxJMx4vvOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Cc: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>, rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e9e05a0570ac4c96"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/hIl8ibKNu6iSRSRYzuneRVdvBLw>
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 22:03:36 -0000

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:51 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:11 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This formulation assumes that change does not have a cost.  It does.  I
>>> agree that not changing has some cost.  However, absent indication that
>>> the changes will actually address the claimed problem...
>>
>>
>> People are presenting indications.  Attach what caveats you need to my
>> little study; it's still real data from a relevant population.  Do you have
>> better data?
>>
>>
>>
>> When I saw the survey, after I filled it in, I noticed that I could do it
>> again. There didn’t appear to be a mechanism to keep anyone from taking it
>> multiple times.   Based on this, I don’t think one can draw any conclusions.
>>
>
> Do you ever use telemetry from fielded products?  How do you know your
> competitors aren't feeding you bad data?
>
>
> You point is?  That your flawed survey is OK because there are other
> flawed surveys?
>

Since Eden, we have lived in a fallen, flawed world, and we get along with
flawed surveys.  We extract what meaning we can.

In any case, as I think I said elsewhere in this thread, I have talked to a
few dozen real, live, honest respondents.  So I've got pretty good
confident that the survey is not massively tainted by abuse.

--Richard




> Bob
>
>
>
>