On 01/28/2013 04:27 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
About the idea of an experiment:
Right. The context being its an RFC 3933 IETF process
experiment.
On 1/25/2013 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
-
On 1/28/2013 3:12 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 01/28/2013 04:27 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
...
If this is an experiment, then you presumably answers to the following
questions:
1- what is your an hypothesis?
2- what you intend to measure?
3- what is your 'control' against which
About the idea of an experiment:
On 1/25/2013 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
a few times and won't consume any huge resource
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com
To: Joe Touch to...@isi.edu
Cc: adr...@olddog.co.uk; ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 9:31 PM
FWIW, I share Joe's concerns. And Stephen's responses don't really
change my mind.
This document seems to have a bit of
Folks,
I'm very much on the same page as Tom, the normal problem we have
is not too much review, it is that we don't have enough.
Running code is valuable, but does not normally replace review.
/Loa
On 2013-01-25 11:02, t.p. wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Thomas Narten
Responses to some points below but I'd really like to ask
people to consider a few things here:
- what's proposed is an experiment, it'd likely get tried out
a few times and won't consume any huge resource anywhere
- its optional, WG chairs that want to try it could, those
that don't can
