Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-etal-ietf-analysis-00.txt

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:04:17 GMT

*> 
  *> * though I wish that WGs that shut down without producing a protocol
  *> document would at least write up a brief RFC that explains what it 
  *> tried to do and why it shut down - was the problem "too hard" or 
  *> infeasible, was the subject too politically contentious (and what
  *> were the divisive positions),  were there found to be adequate 
  *> solutions already developed, did people lose interest, or what?  
  *> but sometimes even this much reporting is too difficult.
  *> 
  *> 

Strongly agree.

What we don't want to do is to measure productivity by page count or even
RFC count.  Hey, I could have written the RSVP RFC as five documents;
would that be a win?  I don't think so.

Bob Braden

---

From: "John Stracke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:17:16 -0500

>If the purpose of the IETF is to push out a small number of
>high quality drafts, this is not the metric to use.

Obviously.  But having a metric, and doing research to improve that 
metric, is not the same as using it.  Nobody has proposed using the data 
from this I-D--and, given the thrust of this thread, I'd guess nobody 
will.

/===============================================================\
|John Stracke                    |Principal Engineer            |
[email-masked]   |Incentive Systems, Inc.       |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com |My opinions are my own.       |
|===============================================================|
|Ea est fabula nostra, et non mutabimus eam! --House Falconguard|
|and Affiliated Scum                                            |
\===============================================================/

---

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:08:15 GMT

Mark Adam wrote:
> 
> Ok... So I'm being a little idealistic, but this is different that just
> saying "Me too" to the "We ain't makin' widgets" responses. Optimally we
> should judge the work of a WG based on how well its output is accepted by
> the world at large, but that's a little late in the process.

I think this leaves out a very, very important issue -- when you make
the judgment.  A successful IETF output is one that continues to be
relevant and useful for a long time, and that enables the continued
flexibility and adaptability of the Internet to the requirements 10
years down the road.  We got where we are today by taking a long
view... we need to push back against those who would let short-term
optimizations produce long-term ossification.

Bob Braden

---

From: Greg Skinner <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 Apr 2002 03:33:49 -0000

> optimizations produce long-term ossification.

I agree, however I wonder if that is still possible now, in this time
where short-term imperatives dominate decision making (particularly where
networking technology is concerned).  The IETF was born in a time when
not only was it possible, it was encouraged to take the long-term view.

--gregbo