Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us

Hi Joel,

> On Jul 10, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you Joseph.Yes, it is confusing.
> And it is confusing in many different ways for many different reasons.
> 
> It is very strange to have a BoF about such confusion, and then be told that various specific forms of confusion (such as I-D vs RFC whcih you cite, or different kinds of I-Ds which I mentioned) are out of scope.

In my experience arguing about the scope of the problem is pretty typical BOF fodder, so in that respect this one does not seem unusual thus far.

It’s true that the BOF description keyed off of the problem statement in RFC 1796, which doesn’t mention Internet-drafts. I don’t think that makes confusion about what I-Ds are or whether they are standards out of scope. These also aren’t mutually exclusive problems; tackling more than one of them seems like a valid outcome if that’s what the community wants to do.

> Apparently, we know which problems are important to the community before we have the discussion.

I’m not sure who you mean by “we,” but I don’t feel like I could draw such a conclusion at this point. 

Alissa

> usually, we get that information from the email list discussion with the community before a BoF is requested.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> On 7/10/18 6:05 PM, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:51 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>    On Jul 10, 2018, at 1:56 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx
>>>    <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:11 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Richard,
>>> 
>>>>        On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx
>>>>        <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>        On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM Joel M. Halpern
>>>>        <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto: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?
>> I have a hard time seeing any survey research design that would convince this group, and I think that Richard's survey is a non-trivial effort to get some granted ugly data.
>> As Richard pointed out, I guess I'm the noob here on the list, having been attending IETFs since IETF 89 in London, about 4.5 years ago. I must admit I still find so much of IETF a bit baffling... now that I'm approaching my IETF adolescence, I'm starting to understand why certain things are the way they are at IETF, and I'm thankful that it does what it does well and thoroughly. (I've even chipped in on the IASA 2.0 effort to help adapt IETF's administrative structure for the future.)
>> However, the document series still baffles me, and I know a lot of folks that squint at IETF and don't understand any of the distinctions we do (I would have answered the survey question as there being only 4 document series). Alissa had the unenviable task at one point of sitting me down and telling me the difference between and ID and RFC, even after I had thoroughly read the Tao and been to a couple IETFs. (The ID we've been working on for a while I even named (incorrectly) when setting up a github repository as an RFC: https://github.com/josephlhall/rfc-censorship-tech ).
>> I'll throw my hat in and say I'd like to see data, qualitative or quantitative. I'm a mixed methods researcher and have experience in both. I know a number of us have had enough informal discussions with "liminal" IETF participants that there is enough confusion here to explore doing something about it. That may not warrant an immediate document identifier experiment, but I think we could settle on some sort of research design that would provide essentially something like "running code" we could work with. cheers, Joe
>> -- 
>> Joseph Lorenzo Hall
>> Chief Technologist, Center for Democracy & Technology [https://www.cdt.org]
>> 1401 K ST NW STE 200, Washington DC 20005-3497
>> e: joe@cdt.org <mailto:joe@cdt.org>, p: 202.407.8825, pgp: https://josephhall.org/gpg-key
>> Fingerprint: 3CA2 8D7B 9F6D DBD3 4B10  1607 5F86 6987 40A9 A871
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus