IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> Tue, 10 July 2018 20:56 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 CA19D131157 for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:56:33 -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 avvd9e4bYlmb for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x234.google.com (mail-oi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::234]) (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 8F8C31310E2 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x234.google.com with SMTP id q11-v6so19730472oic.12 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:56:31 -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=cJ3Q6fpXG0AMahV8uqHyiKVingguECjPir01LWVac9E=; b=G9GyE38EgFpXOmA511mh6GoYkRVi4PmAcsc/PeVOVrMvsng/5Jp3TL0VEoQKRe/dpu +HAuBlJL72dYKERs0jiQ+ZkrFQXnR/3JQiLKT/UF+PGlzh7xLeaJT9msRWX8lqi6Ihau RcM6hFaC33Avqs7Rkywru46oZpY9HWh71z8IGQ3RWkBRAHW8LdtI/UCPCx72urHHEPD3 VihPpJAxdbimzTqAeJZbNqEqP0Lr5GBZMy/7TAIkaAX+LkOnj5LcjqEz95BbTakFw6F9 su6JzsDRZiBBSKzfeJvaex75K7aDvTVYuGZl7tzmG1wqYkIdrZjgOqMrlOGOS6JLb8UM A4bQ==
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=cJ3Q6fpXG0AMahV8uqHyiKVingguECjPir01LWVac9E=; b=F96cVM/9TY9qcS+bL9SiXwn+cDVhC+XZc6EXpTaVp84s8WMQ+lRR+2MxxdbiqYTqrd enZK41NU0zZMeFBLrlotyL8fPFJ9zF0EOjwtPrh4yh4URIimXnHis3p9dYiprsjyqzQa 84YumRoPt2YJ4StxmCgZcGkUvGoT/NrxAfBJ4+e8bcXsTIZ87Ry2c8tCGu5t3X9Bh7nQ XcY3Xb1SXDgWC35NXv9WtjiO5DqTn1x2fPZF8BnYdik7lxlg8e5qQbMtTdgWzz5w4sFe H2l2qLLXgnU8W0vkLnP70Nn9PjI6qtgmNkMn1e2dFaNfM1dT3VS9XY/dFCfVLBHflBs8 gQmQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2sw8RdYvda614rhLbWwNFKbvLQ0yNsczTUF9HchIUdb2mWPRwL bvwajcrAn9WN6w7C9FkEwZNKTrGoKBZBsh1HtJ8AshEl
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpd65EZychNgRmxKWaIetcH0CTh61lMHZoUqMP2mmVZ3mpJUmzsNqMnAVTGGxdO1a8Y16AJ2neGMswlw662Znmw=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:c0d5:: with SMTP id q204-v6mr27413198oif.77.1531256190625; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 13:56:30 -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>
In-Reply-To: <639B8766-A030-490D-8431-C3F9F3EAFCB4@gmail.com>
From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:56:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CAL02cgQQPcoaQqz5XiUYH7DeUvBM617ZjxTVtrEJ68yEwz0pcg@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="0000000000004d7ed10570ab5d03"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/sxNCUBETW0a9x518RSWTLrFYTsg>
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 20:56:40 -0000

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?

--Richard



>
> Bob
>
>
>

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status