ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FW: Last Call: <draft-farrell-ft-03.txt> (A Fast-Track way to RFCwith Running Code) to Experimental RFC

2013-01-27 22:28:25
About the idea of an "experiment":

On 1/25/2013 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:

- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
   a few times and won't consume any huge resource anywhere

If this is an experiment, then you presumably answers to the following questions:

        1- what is your an hypothesis?
        2- what you intend to measure?
        3- what is your 'control' against which to compare the results?
        4- what is your objective metric for success/failure?

I've heard only one hypothesis - that this reduces time to publication. I disagree that this is a useful hypothesis to test for the following reasons:

        - time to publication isn't a goal of the IETF
                IMO, any doc that isn't useful in 5 years ought
                to not be published here; we don't need to
                document every sneeze

        - thorough review ought to be a requirement
                and this 'experiment' potentially compromises that
                by reducing the overall time of review

        - community resources ought to be considered
                and this 'experiment' burns group resources
                due to having a broad group concurrently review
                a doc that could have been reviewed by smaller
                groups first

Given the limited cycles this community has to review docs, I cannot see a benefit to this experiment that is worth the cost.

Having this entire community burn cycles on this document speaks for itself. It should have been vetted in a smaller, more invested community first.

Calling something an 'experiment' doesn't make it worthwhile to test.

Joe


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>