Subject: RE: [INDEP] Workload management ( was Re: Queue time? )

From: "Gray, Eric" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:11:02 -0400

Keith,

	Can you, or someone else, tell me in what way terms like
"stupid", "well-thought-out", "orthodox" or "brain damaged" 
apply to _information_?

--
Eric

--> -----Original Message-----
--> From: Keith Moore [mailto:[email-masked]] 
--> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:56 PM
--> To: Joe Touch
--> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
--> Subject: Re: [INDEP] Workload management ( was Re: Queue time? )
--> 
--> > >> Individual submissions have always been available as a 
--> path for the
--> > >> expression of alternate - and sometimes unpopular - 
--> ideas. Shutting down
--> > >> that path shuts out ideas.
--> > > 
--> > > unpopular but well-thought-out ideas are fine.  stupidity isn't.
--> > 
--> > Agreed; that's why I said the negative 'not clearly X' 
--> rather than the
--> > positive. That ought to catch silly/stupid/dangerous, but be as
--> > inclusive as possible (be generous in what we receive ;-)
--> 
--> I don't want the evaluation to be based on the orthodoxy of 
--> the idea,
--> I want it to be based on how well the document is written 
--> and how well
--> the idea is supported/defended.   I'd much prefer that the criteria
--> be defined in positive terms (e.g. "well supported") rather 
--> than negative
--> terms ("not clearly brain-damaged").   Even orthodox ideas 
--> need to be
--> well-supported.
--> 
--> 
--> _______________________________________________
--> INDEPENDENT mailing list
--> [email-masked]
--> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent
--> 

_______________________________________________
INDEPENDENT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/independent

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 17:25:05 -0400

> "stupid", "well-thought-out", "orthodox" or "brain damaged" 

for information, I'd want to see criteria like relevance, accuracy,
precision, and the quality with which the information were
labeled/categorized.

Keith

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:37:41 -0700

> "stupid", "well-thought-out", "orthodox" or "brain damaged" 

There are ideas that are nonsensical - perhaps that's a neutral term for
it - that can be avoided. E.g., nontechnical issues (i.e., geopolitics),
and nonsensical technical discussions (I recall drafts that redefine
binary arithmetic, and just saw a paper tome that redefines Pi).

It's also possible for ideas to be incomplete, self-contradictory, etc.

I expect we all hope that such cases are fairly easy to identify, and
the feedback is "revise and return if desired" rather than "reject".
But, regardless, there are some submissions that are clearly out of
scope, and that case needs to be handled.

Joe

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:39:32 +1000

Well, if we are heading into the space of stating positions by asking 
leading questions, then can anyone tell me why we (or ISOC, or...)  need to 
maintain yet one more publication channel in this day and age? It there a 
paucity of blog accounts on the open market this month?

I simply cannot accept the proposition that shutting down the path to 
independent submissions to publication with the RFC Editor bars all forms 
of publication of the concept and somehow mutes your cherished thoughts and 
ramblings from the world. It makes a nice sound-bite that we need such 
channels as a means of allowing alternate ideas to flourish, but its 
ultimately a meaningless mantra. Nor could I agree with the concept that in 
having the RFC not publish ""stupid", "well-thought-out", "orthodox" or 
"brain damaged"" material in some way and some how prevents such ideas from 
being circulated. From my perspective this is a symptom of an advanced 
state of denial of the world as it is these days.

The entire concept that we need the RFC Editor to provide such a channel of 
independent submissions and that their publication magically makes them 
available in a way that otherwise they'd be lost to the world forever, and 
by not publishing them we are condemning the work to not just obscurity, 
but destruction, appears to me to reflect a largely irrelevant publication 
framework of a bygone era. It seems to me to be a state of google-denial 
where search engines and blogs, and online logged dialogues,don't exist. Or 
maybe its just a path for aspiring authors to have access to a free 
copy-editing and formatting service. Either way, it seems largely 
irrelevant artifact to me these days.

    Geoff

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 18:00:02 -0400

> ramblings from the world.

well, of course not.  and I certainly don't think ISOC should support
the RFC Editor's energies to publish things that aren't relevant to the
audience of readers of IETF RFCs.

I do think that there are occasionally documents that are relevant to
the readers of IETF RFCs that, for whatever reason, should not go
through the IETF Process.    Obvious examples include:

- documents produced by other standards bodies that are made available
via the RFC series for the public good

- specifications of widely used, vendor proprietary protocols. 
in this case it might be appropriate for IETF to say something about
the quality of those protocols, but it shouldn't change the
specification.  the goal of such publication should be to document the
protocol as it is actually implemented and/or intended to work, not to
fix it.

- documents about the arrangements between organizations peripheral to
IETF, e.g. ISOC, ICANN, IANA, RIRs, etc, or between IETF and such
organizations.

- april 1 RFCs (a cherished and IMHO harmless tradition)

- IAB and IESG opinions, reports of IAB workshops and IRTF activities

In addition to the obvious examples above, having seen many WGs go off
in the weeds and produce garbage, even though that garbage gained
consensus of sorts (perhaps consensus by exhaustion) within the WG, I
am also sympathetic to the view that there is value in allowing
well-defended arguments for better or alternative ways to do things to
be published as RFCs.  I think of these like I think of "dissenting" or
"minority" supreme court opinions.  They are valuable even if they are
nonbinding.

However - we need to keep the quality of the RFC series high.  I
generally think the RFC Editor has done a good job at this, but I can
point to exceptions.  Of course, the IETF has its share of botches
also.  

I see the value of the RFC series is in having most of the documents
that are relevant to core internet protocols in one place, AND in
having those documents be of reasonable completeness, accuracy, and
clarity.  One-stop shopping.   

Either that, or if you do a google search for your  protocol of
interest you'll find tens of thousands of hits.  But if one of them is
an RFC, you want to be able to select that one in confidence that it's
relevant (well, relevant to the intended audience of RFCs)  and of high
quality.

Keith

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 14:59:34 -0700

Geoff Huston wrote:
> leading questions, then can anyone tell me why we (or ISOC, or...)  need
> to maintain yet one more publication channel in this day and age? It
> there a paucity of blog accounts on the open market this month?

RFCs are a place where we describe documents relevant to Internet
protocols; it makes sense to encourage publication of related issues
there, even if those issues/protocols/whatever are not a formal part of
the IETF process.

Joe

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:40:51 -0400

>>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Huston <[email-masked]> writes:
    Geoff> Well, if we are heading into the space of stating positions
    Geoff> by asking leading questions, then can anyone tell me why we
    Geoff> (or ISOC, or...)  need to maintain yet one more publication
    Geoff> channel in this day and age? It there a paucity of blog
    Geoff> accounts on the open market this month?

  Yes, there is a lack of *stable* places for people to post this kind
of thing.  It's really amazing, but it's true. I blame NATs and PPPoE,
myself.  
  (<SMILE>If there are any problems that can't be blamed on NATs, I
would claim they are features</SMILE>)

  I realize that this doesn't really apply to anyone in this group.

  I am regularly amazed at how many so-called "Internet Engineers",
having missed the draft deadline, are unable to post their document to a
web page, resorting to emailing it to the WG mailing list. 

  You do raise a good point -- I'd still like to have an entry in the
IANA protocol table with some kind of pointer. I'm happy if it is a
stable URL/URI.

    Geoff> I simply cannot accept the proposition that shutting down the
    Geoff> path to independent submissions to publication with the RFC
    Geoff> Editor bars all forms of publication of the concept and
    Geoff> somehow mutes your cherished thoughts and ramblings from the
    Geoff> world. It makes a nice sound-bite that we need such channels

  My experience is that a lot of "version 1" of a protocol are published
as informational, independant submission, and that "version 2" becomes a
WG effort. The utility of having version 1 published is that it makes
is much easier to refer to.

    Geoff> obscurity, but destruction, appears to me to reflect a
    Geoff> largely irrelevant publication framework of a bygone era. It
    Geoff> seems to me to be a state of google-denial where search
    Geoff> engines and blogs, and online logged dialogues,don't
    Geoff> exist. Or maybe its just a path for aspiring authors to have
    Geoff> access to a free copy-editing and formatting service. Either
    Geoff> way, it seems largely irrelevant artifact to me these days.

  Frankly, as a submitter, I could do without the copy-editing, and the
formatting service mostly created more work for me.

- -- 
]       ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine.           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

    "The Microsoft _Get the Facts CD_ does not work on Linux." - orospakr