Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.4 \(3445.8.2\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <417f8cb3-f42f-2d65-554a-ae330cd9e2c6@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 21:36:09 -0400
Cc: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joe@cdt.org>,
 rfcplusplus@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <553E8AC4-CEDB-42BA-9071-705B19EFBF24@cooperw.in>
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>
 <CABtrr-WFzgor3s9R=VZ1HG9Vkgj4=khDfpFH3OkV3zxd17oLVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <417f8cb3-f42f-2d65-554a-ae330cd9e2c6@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/xcwMVulZxPQmIK5JJIYZvuWLJqM>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Sunk cost + not about us
Precedence: list

Hi Joel,

> On Jul 10, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Thank you Joseph.Yes, it is confusing.
> And it is confusing in many different ways for many different reasons.
>=20
> 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=E2=80=99s true that the BOF description keyed off of the problem =
statement in RFC 1796, which doesn=E2=80=99t mention Internet-drafts. I =
don=E2=80=99t think that makes confusion about what I-Ds are or whether =
they are standards out of scope. These also aren=E2=80=99t mutually =
exclusive problems; tackling more than one of them seems like a valid =
outcome if that=E2=80=99s what the community wants to do.

> Apparently, we know which problems are important to the community =
before we have the discussion.

I=E2=80=99m not sure who you mean by =E2=80=9Cwe,=E2=80=9D but I don=E2=80=
=99t feel like I could draw such a conclusion at this point.=20

Alissa

> usually, we get that information from the email list discussion with =
the community before a BoF is requested.
>=20
> Yours,
> Joel
>=20
> 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:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>    On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:11 PM Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com
>>>    <mailto:bob.hinden@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>        Richard,
>>>=20
>>>>        On Jul 10, 2018, at 7:21 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx
>>>>        <mailto:rlb@ipv.sx>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>        On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM Joel M. Halpern
>>>>        <jmh@joelhalpern.com <mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com>> wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>>            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...
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>>        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?
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>        When I saw the survey, after I filled it in, I noticed that I
>>>        could do it again. There didn=E2=80=99t appear to be a =
mechanism to
>>>        keep anyone from taking it multiple times.   Based on this, I
>>>        don=E2=80=99t think one can draw any conclusions.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>    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
>> --=20
>> 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
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Rfcplusplus mailing list
> Rfcplusplus@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus