|
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@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 6:55 PM To: Tony Hansen <tony@xxxxxxx> Cc: ietf <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Qualifying for NomCom On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:20 PM, HANSEN, TONY L <tony@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Wouldn't we want to repeat the experiment with the twiddling before making it part of the BCP? That's outcome 2.
-MSK
|