Subject: Re: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request

From: Todd Glassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 08:43:01 -0700 (GMT-07:00)

Why is this true - I am not saying its not but its an assertion that is undocumented and unsupported. So how does this work - why would the series be less valuable and because of what - this is a key question in establishing a value propisition for the IETF's wares.

T
-----Original Message-----
>From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Aug 8, 2006 8:38 AM
>To: Yaakov Stein <[email-masked]>
>Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], Joe Touch <[email-masked]>, [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [INDEP] Re: RFC Editor RFP Review Request
>
>>> Your last statement - that a break in the series would invalidate
>>> it - argues very forcibly that no such "gap" can be allowed to
>>> occur going forward (unless you are of the opinion that IP, TCP,
>>> UDP etc. are "done evolving").  Hence, something would have to take
>>> the place of the IETF and the RFC series practically immediately.
>>> 
>> 
>> What I said was that a gap in standards-track RFCs would render the 
>> series useless.
>
>I think this is basically correct.  The series wouldn't immediately
>become useless but would become less useful over time.  The individual
>documents for IP, TCP, etc. would continue to be useful until the
>community felt that they had been replaced.
>
>> Were we to be foolish enough to allow a prolonged hiatus in the RFC 
>> series, there would be other SDOs more than willing to take over 
>> maintenance and extension of the IP suite, of course labeling the
>> resulting standards "Implementation Agreements" or "Recommendations"
>> instead of "RFCs".
>
>pretty much agree with this also.  abandoning the RFC series (without an 
>immediate replacement from IETF) would create a vacuum that other SDOs 
>would be eager to fill.  even with an immediate replacement there would 
>likely be some market confusion if we changed the name from RFC to 
>something else.
>
>> More importantly, later IETF work (even if called "RFCs") would not
>> be readily viewed as a natural evolution of the original IP 
>> standards, and would require us to actively market them.
>
>concur.
>
>Keith
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: "Yaakov Stein" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:11:39 +0200

> Why is this true - I am not saying its not but its an assertion that
is undocumented and unsupported. 

Well, we could do a process experiment. 
No standards-track RFCs for 5 years,  and the start afresh. 
Not sure I would support experiment, but I can't think of any other way
to prove the tenets.

Actually, even that experiment wouldn't be proof without a control
group.
So perhaps we should try 5 years of RFCs only for the western hemisphere
and see if the eastern hemisphere has faith in the RFC series 5 years
later.

> So how does this work - why would the series be less valuable and
because of what - 

In psychophysics there is the concept of the Just Noticeable Difference
or JND.
The JND is the minimal change in the physical world that produces a
noticeable
effect on the senses. JNDs are the main experimental method for studying
the 
so called mind-body connection problem.

Imagine sitting in the desert before sunrise. At first everything is
dark,
and then you perceive a small amount of light. That is the first unit.
Then after a while you can say that you have seen an increase in the
amount of light. Two units. In that way you continue until full sunlight
(N units). It turns out that the JND units are logarithmically related
to the amount of light as measured by a photometer; i.e. when it was
still relatively dark we notice very small changes, 
but once the sun is half up tremendous increases can go by un-noticed.

Now imagine sitting watching Internet technology develop.
At the beginning every addition was immediately noticeable.
IP, TCP, ICMP, etc each were a JND. Over time individual RFCs
that may make giant contributions and require much more sophistication
are no longer considered major steps, perhaps only the entire
output of a WG, dozens of RFCs, maps into a single JND.
(This does not denigrate high number RFCs as compared to low number
ones,
it is just a feature of the body-mind mapping.)

However, each JND is conceived as one more step in a path to
enlightenment.

Now consider what woud happen were we to cover the person sitting in the
desert 
with a black cloth after 1/2 hour of observing the minute changes,
and then uncover him. He would immediately note a giant change in
the amount of light. He would certainly not be able to quantify the
change
or on its basis tell how much time had elapsed,
and may even not be sure that he was still in the same place.

Loss of physchological continuity would cause Internet standards
observers 
to lose faith in the new work being done, which would no longer be
considered
a direct consequence of continuous development efforts.
New work would seem unnecessary and overly complex, the jump
would simply be too many JNDs for the mind to grasp.

> this is a key question in establishing a value propisition for the
IETF's wares.

Agreed.

Y(J)S