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@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf