Subject: Two modest proposals

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:11:50 -0500

As I watch the endless stream of drafts still coming in almost a week past
the submission deadline, I have two modest proposals to make:

1. Move the submission deadline further back (at least a week).  It's
obvious that people are deadline-driven; the drafts will get done no matter
what the deadline is, since people plan their work to meet the deadline.
With the huge number of drafts now showing up just before each meeting,
moving the deadline back gives people more time to read the drafts of
interest in order to be able to discuss them intelligently.

2. Make it easier to get everything.  There are two ways to make this happen:

2a: Once all of the drafts have been processed and announced, tar or zip up
all of the drafts into one big file that can be downloaded in one step
(gzip the tar file, of course).

2b: Produce a CD-ROM that is handed out during registration that contains
all of the current drafts and RFCs.  The ATM Forum now does this very
successfully with incoming contributions to each meeting, and it works
great both for getting everything and having a permanent archival store.  I
would happily pay $10 for such a CD-ROM.

Comments?

Andy

________________________________________________________________________
Andrew G. Malis  [email-masked]  phone:978 952-7414   fax:978 392-2074
Ascend Communications, Inc.        1 Robbins Road     Westford, MA 01886

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:25:33 -0700 (MST)

As long as we're talking about "Modest Proposals," it seems appropriate
to remember the origin and connotations of that phrase.  

The flood of draft announcements is not a serious a problem compared to
the deluge of drafts itself.  My modest proposal is that no draft be
published without the affirmation of at least two technically competant
people other than the author and the colleagues of the author that draft
appears technically sound and plausible.  Define 'technically competent'
as people who could design and write the code necessary to implement the
draft, as demonstrated by other substantial code that they are publically
known to have written within the last 10 years.  (The other code would
not need to be freely available--just some way to separate those who talk
about implementing and those who actually implement at least once or twice
a decade.)

For how many of the current drafts could you find support from two such
independent, technically competent people?  My guess is that fewer than
10% of the drafts would meet this test.

How many of the drafts will ever have two or more independent
implementations?  My guess is that the notion of writing code makes
sense for fewer than 30% of the drafts, and of those, fewer than
10% will ever be implemented by anyone, including their authors.

I'd be glad to hear that I'm wrong in those estimates, so please prove me
wrong.  It should be easy to point to several dozen drafts of the many
hundreds in the last 24 months that have a couple of implementations.

Assume that I am wrong.  How many drafts can the IETF handle per year?
Never mind the machinery of putting them in reposititories, but consider
the approvals by the IAB, allocating numbers by the IANA, last calls, and
so forth.

Compare the sizes of the memberships of the IETF, ANSI, ITU, and IEEE.
Then compare the number of documents produced annually by the other
outfits with the number of IETF drafts.

Now consider the effects of the noise drafts on the future standards drafts
within the working groups.  At some point, the signal/noise ratio must be
so high that the noise drafts saturate the system, and important drafts
do not get considered.  0.1 is not so high a s/n ratio to paralyze the
IETF processes, but 0.000001 certainly is.  My guess is that current noise
level is at the critical threshold.

The IETF is in serious danger of failing through its success.  It might
already be too late.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Leonid Yegoshin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:59:24 -0800

>From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
>

   Excelent idea ! I like it.

		       - Leonid Yegoshin, LY22

---

From: Leonid Yegoshin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:59:24 -0800

- Leonid Yegoshin, LY22

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:35:31 -0700 (MST)

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

> My guess is that greater than 85% would meet the test.

Are you also asserting that more than a tiny minority of the flood
of drafts are ever implemented?  You can't be saying that more than
a numerically insignificant minority every have independent
implementations, since that would clearly be false.

Why not take the first 10 drafts announced after noon Tuesday and
see if you can get two independent, 'technically competent' (in my
special, restricted meaning) supporters for more than 8?  Of course,
you'll be able to find many supporters who consider themselves
technically competent by some definition other than mine. 
If you wish, I'll use some other phrase to denote my meaning.

> Most of the drafts I see appear to be written by "technically
> competent" people, even by your definition of "technically competent."
> (i.e. even if the authors don't fit your definition of "technically
> competent", the drafts are indistinguishable from drafts written
> by people who do fit that definition.)

I beg to differ.  I've found the drafts written by implementors
are both rare and obvious, without looking at the names of authors,
even when I personally think the ideas in the drafts are bad.

> IMHO, ability to write code, while a useful skill, isn't nearly 
> so important as having experience to draw on, to inform the 
> design of the protocol.  Being able to write code makes for a 
> clearer specification; having appropriate experience makes it 
> more likely that the protocol will actually work well.

It's true that being able to design and build things requires more than
just the knowing how to use a text editor or a GUI SDK.  However, merely
using a protocol (or a computer) never provides enough of your "appropriate
experience" to design a useful protocol (or system).

What is the saying that goes something like "everyone thinks they can do
X, although they'd never dream of doing brain surgery"?  What was X?

The IETF is suffering a catastrophic collapse in quality.  The
number of "Informational" RFC's is an objective indicator that even
non-implementors should be able to understand.  The number of drafts
that expire without implementation is another.

Even if you think that 85% of all drafts are good, you must admit that
there too many drafts for the IETF to do them all justice.

Remember Sturgeon's Law.

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 01:08:37 -0700 (MST)

> ...
> This doesn't sound so bad.  In most cases people should get
> their propoals reviewed before they actually start to implement
> them, because any proposal is likely to change a fair amount
> before it gains consensus.

On the contrary, consensus should involve choosing among at least
prototyped ideas, not typical standards committee overhead-projector
blarney, white board designs, and cloud diagrams.

> I'd far rather we implement only the best 1/3 (if even that many) of
> our proposals, than to prematurely implement all of them.

Why should the IETF be the reviewer for every crackpot wannabe protocol
designer in the world?  Doesn't the U.S.Patent Office have the franchise
on that service?

Or to put it more politely, if you agree that 90% of all drafts for which
"implementation" makes sense are never implemented even by their authors,
why don't you think that's a Very Bad Thing?  What do you mean by
"prematurely implement"?  Supposedly, the difference between the old IETF
and the old ISO was that the ISO chose designs before implementation. 
Do you really think that anyone who submits a design to an international
standards committee before implementing it at least as a prototype it is
likely to be thinking critically enough to have produced a design that any
sane implementor would bother with?

Anyone with an idea can propose it to a working group without writing an
Official Internet Draft, and without writing any code.  The only reason
to write an Internet Draft is the hope that it will be published as an
RFC, an official IETF standard (small 's').  How can anyone sane hope for
an idea to become an official standard without at least building a
prototype implementation?

Just who is this "we" that you say is implementing things, if not the
authors of the drafts?

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:35:41 +0000

At 21:25 24/11/98 -0700, Vernon Schryver wrote:
[...]
>10% will ever be implemented by anyone, including their authors.

Er... not all drafts are protocol specifications, so I'm not sure the
criterion applies.  Many are written as position papers to be a focus of
discussion, with every intention that they will go away after their
allotted 6 months.

I'm not sure that it is anyone other than the author of an unwanted (hence
unread) draft who really loses anything.

>level is at the critical threshold.

Working groups I'm involved in are quite clear about what drafts are being
progressed, so I don't see the excess really creating any noise.

The only thing I would mention is that I sometimes think a draft could
maybe have a minimum lifetime (say 1 month) before being updated, as well
as the 6-month maximum.

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 00:35:41 +0000

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])