Re: draft-housley-iesg-rfc3932bis and the optional/mandatory nature of I

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:19:05AM -0700, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> > First, you lack empirical data to substantiate your assessment of the 
> > perception.
> Well, Wikipedia 
...
> The fourth link from Google in response to, "What is an RFC?" says
...
> So even if those pages go on to refine their statements, I don't think
> it preposterous to suggest that people think "the RFC series" is "from
> the IETF".

Andrew (and Stephen),

Thank you for exploring the question of empirical data, as well as demonstrating 
how methodologically challenged discussion in the IETF tends to be, particularly 
with respect to anything involving or implying statistics...
The original comment was about universality of perception.  Particular examples 
were cited at the beginning of Stephen's note, but they morphed into a statement 
of universality by the end of it.
Your own note cited the first and fourth google listings but left out, for 
example, the second and third.  Based on that latter set, I could claim that 
"THE" perception is that the RFC series is "the working notes of the Internet 
research and development community" and "a formal mechanism used to describe 
communications standards for the Internet and systems (like USENET) that are 
closely tied to it."
That's quite a different characterization of the RFC series and besides being 
more accurate, it has the same empirical basis being put forth as "the" 
perception" of the series as what you are citing.
But, of course, this is all about the first of two challenges I offered and 
empirical data for the latter is what justifies considering a change.
Stephen just posted the view that we should be "proactive", but does not seem to 
understand that we missed that opportunity 20 years ago.  Whatever "problem" we 
need to anticipate has failed to materialize for two decades.
But the real crux of this debate is represented by the difference between my 
second challenge and Stephen's alternative challenge: "If there were indeed no 
value beyond traditions, why run any risk, no matter how small?"
First, it means that we need to be clearer about the intended benefit behind 
having the Independent stream.  (For any activity, it's always a good idea to 
have an explicit and visible value proposition...)
Second, it misses the practical implication of making changes due to imagined 
risks, particularly since there is always an infinite set of them to choose from.
Third, it ignores the operations rule that all change is, itself, risk, and that 
therefore no change is justified unless there is a solid basis for expecting 
very, very substantial benefits.  (For any activity, it's always a good idea to 
have an explicit and visible value proposition...)
d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf