I don't know. It seems like it depends on the outcome of the experiment as to
what the next step should be. It may be obvious at that point what the answer
should be, but not what was specified in section 2. I don't want us to be
overly constrained in our choices.
There's actually another choice that is not specified: it was a mistake to do
this experiment and that the rules should remain the same as they are now and
not change.
Here's my formulation of the 4 choices:
*) We learned enough to say that no change need to be made to the current rules.
*) We learned some things and need to run another experiment with different
parameters.
*) We learned enough to know what the change to the current rules is that needs
to be made, either
-) as specified in section 2 or
-) some other formulation.
Tony
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy"
<superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com<mailto:superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM
To: Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com<mailto:tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>>
Cc: ietf <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org<mailto:ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>>
Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:20 PM, HANSEN, TONY L
<tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com<mailto:tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>> wrote:
No, outcome 1 says to use the criteria in section 2 directly as specified
there. Outcome 4 lets us twiddle it.
Wouldn't we want to repeat the experiment with the twiddling before making it
part of the BCP? That's outcome 2.
-MSK