Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:23:32 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPv6 Operations" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 11:37 PM

> Pursuant to our discussion Tuesday, I'd be interested in working group comment
on
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements
>   "Some Measurements on World IPv6 Day from End-User Perspective", Ari
>   Keranen, Jari Arkko, 11-Jul-11
>
> I could imagine not publishing as RFC (it has already served its purpose),
sending to the IESG as an individual submission for informational status, or
adopting as a working group item and eventually sending as that to the IESG for
informational status. Up to you guys...

I find that bizarre.  Of course it should be published as an RFC (with a few
tweaks for grammar, ease of use and comprehension).  I cannot imagine how it has
done its job; its job is to provide us with a  point of reference in the current
and future discussions about IPv6, where and how much of it there is, etc. and
that can only be done as an RFC (or, less good, as its equivalent in some other
body).

Tom Petch
>
> What would you like to do?
>   - do you want to adopt it?
>   - separate question, do you want to publish it?
>   - if you want to publish it, do you have any comments?
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 09:49:46 -0700

> that can only be done as an RFC (or, less good, as its equivalent in some other

Well, yes, but we had several other presentations whose only record is in the proceedings. OK, I take your comment and Keith's as support for sending it in as an individual submission.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 11:05:04 -0700

For the record, if you look through the set of drafts I have posted since 1989 and the set of RFCs that have come out, you will see that I personally entertain little expectation that a given draft that I write will become an RFC. Sometimes they do - for me, 49 times to date. Far more often - for me, 170 drafts (and many more versions of drafts, but that's not what I'm talking about) resulting in about 150 acknowledgements in other RFCs, and in many cases simply being part of the total IETF discussion - a draft facilitates a discussion that may or may not be headed in a direction useful to the community or of archival importance. At this IETF, I posted two drafts in homenet that I frankly expect to have little archival value, but facilitated a discussion in the working group.

On Jul 30, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> Pursuant to our discussion Tuesday, I'd be interested in working group comment on
> I could imagine not publishing as RFC (it has already served its purpose), sending to the IESG as an individual submission for informational status, or adopting as a working group item and eventually sending as that to the IESG for informational status. Up to you guys...
>

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 13:07:03 +0200

Ari

In the hope that you will take up Fred's generous offer to push this through to
an RFC, I hope that you will find these comments helpful

I would like to see more references, for 6to4 and for the various .pdf; I think
it works better to have them all in one place.

I find the X-axis of the graphs unclear; time presumably, but what time?

I think that the biggest conclusion is omitted; only 2.45% of the top 10,000
sites offer IPv6 via DNS ie next to none; I think that this should be in BIG
BOLD LETTERS.

And while comprehension is no problem, the idiom is sometimes slightly odd.
Doubtless the RFC Editor will fix it but I could point some of these out to you
if you want.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IPv6 Operations" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 6:49 PM

> that can only be done as an RFC (or, less good, as its equivalent in some
other

Well, yes, but we had several other presentations whose only record is in the
proceedings. OK, I take your comment and Keith's as support for sending it in as
an individual submission.

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 21:44:09 +0200

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Baker" <[email-masked]>
To: "IPv6 Operations" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 8:05 PM

> For the record, if you look through the set of drafts I have posted since 1989
and the set of RFCs that have come out, you will see that I personally entertain
little expectation that a given draft that I write will become an RFC. Sometimes
they do - for me, 49 times to date. Far more often - for me, 170 drafts (and
many more versions of drafts, but that's not what I'm talking about) resulting
in about 150 acknowledgements in other RFCs, and in many cases simply being part
of the total IETF discussion - a draft facilitates a discussion that may or may
not be headed in a direction useful to the community or of archival importance.
At this IETF, I posted two drafts in homenet that I frankly expect to have
little archival value, but facilitated a discussion in the working group.

Fred

Yeeees ... but that is your way of working.  I see the same from eg Brian
Carpenter or John Klensin; an idea comes up on a list, before I have caught up
with the posts there is an I-D from them, technical, process, whatever.  For me,
perhaps for others, producing an I-D is a Big Job, something to contemplate
every six months to give me time to recover before the next one (I see the same
two-speed approach with academic papers).

I think that for most people the expectation is that I-D leads to RFC or else to
disappointment.

Tom Petch

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 16:57:26 -0400

> I think that for most people the expectation is that I-D leads to RFC or else to

I sincerely hope that you're incorrect about that.  It's ridiculous to assume that merely because someone writes a draft, that draft deserves eventual publication as an RFC and the explicit or implied endorsement of the IETF community that comes with it.  If part of what IETF is doing isn't culling through ideas and expressions of ideas, selecting some and discarding others, it's not doing its job.  

Keith

---

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 15:42:50 -0700

> I think that for most people the expectation is that I-D leads to RFC or else to

realistically given that there have been something like 21795 drafts since March 1996 when the tools archive begins and 4435 RFCs in the same timeframe our success rate is way higher than say the publishing industry.

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:43:04 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, t.petch wrote:

> I think that for most people the expectation is that I-D leads to RFC or 
> else to disappointment.

Yes, I agree too. Producing a properly formatted I-D is something I would 
consider being a considerable effort. Writing on the list is for me an 
equivalent to brainstorm in front of the whiteboard, and THEN when 
something is hammered out a bit and there seems to be some interest and 
traction, THEN I produce a document in expectation that this will end up 
as a final product documenting whatever was discussed.

I never start by producing a document before even discussing with my 
coworkers. I know some do, I don't. Different ways of working.

When someone says "put down your idea in form of an I-D and come present 
it at an IETF meeting, otherwise we're not interested" I read that as 
"please go away".

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:23:03 +0300

Speaking as one of the authors.

Ari and I have a few drafts (and more to come) of the nature "we observed
technology X in environment Y and here are our measurement results".

We've been wondering what to do with some of the drafts. I believe some
would be useful to publish in a more permanent form than an ID. With
feedback folded in, where available. That being said, while in general
measurements are very interesting for v6ops (imo more interesting than new
solution ideas), but its not clear that the group should spend a lot of
time finetuning the results, merging different drafts, etc.

In short, if there is interest and feedback we will put in serious effort
to get docs like this out as v6ops RFC. Otherwise, we are inclined to
publish something ad independent RFC, technical report or some academic
forum.

Jari

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:54:38 -0400

> publish something ad independent RFC, technical report or some academic

My recommendation is generally to pursue these as independent submissions, so that v6ops doesn't have to manage them.    But I see little harm in asking v6ops people for feedback via private mail.

Keith

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:41:12 -0400

Well, I can't speak for everyone who has said "write a draft" to you, 
but for myself, when I say that to someone, it may be "go away", it may 
be "I would like to see more details on that", or it may be "I can not 
tell whether you are a genius or crazy, but if you write a draft on this 
I can at least tell which it is."  I believe the second and third are 
more common, but that is a guess.

Given the xml2rfc tools, and stealing a template from an existing draft, 
it does not take me long to write an initial short draft.  Making major 
edits to an existing draft, now that can take longer.

Yours,
Joel

On 8/3/2011 1:43 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> I think that for most people the expectation is that I-D leads to RFC
>> or else to disappointment.
>
> Yes, I agree too. Producing a properly formatted I-D is something I
> would consider being a considerable effort. Writing on the list is for
> me an equivalent to brainstorm in front of the whiteboard, and THEN when

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:35:39 -0700

> publish something ad independent RFC, technical report or some academic

I can see it both ways. We have had some comment on this draft; I'll suggest you bring that to closure, after which I'll send it to Ron, and leave the status and procedure of future documents to you.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:42:09 -0700

On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:41 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:

> Well, I can't speak for everyone who has said "write a draft" to you, but for myself, when I say that to someone, it may be "go away", it may be "I would like to see more details on that", or it may be "I can not tell whether you are a genius or crazy, but if you write a draft on this I can at least tell which it is."  I believe the second and third are more common, but that is a guess.

agreed. The problem with simply sending an email to open a discussion thread or posing a "lightning round" kind of talk is that the basic proposal gets lost in the noise and the thread invariably migrates. They're fine for throwing out an idea; carrying it further requires some discipline. A draft constitutes something everyone can uniformly review and comment on, and suggest changes to. It also, by the nature of being such a statement, has the effect of imposing a certain degree of discipline on the author - Instead of saying "hey, let's all divide by zero on Tuesday, that sounds like a wonderful idea", the author is constrained to somewhat explain what s/he is trying to achieve, the approach, expected results, and so on.

---

From: Ari Keranen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:33:43 +0300

Hi Tom,

> an RFC, I hope that you will find these comments helpful

Thanks for the feedback! As Jari already mentioned, we haven't fixed our plans regarding how and if these results should be published, but if there is interest in the WG, v6ops RFC is indeed one good option.

> it works better to have them all in one place.

By .pdf do you mean the graph PDFs, other presentations something else? 

> I find the X-axis of the graphs unclear; time presumably, but what time?

It's the sequence number of the measurement run; so something like "time in 3 hour steps since the start of the tests". Probably hours (or even time and date) would work better here.

> sites offer IPv6 via DNS ie next to none; I think that this should be in BIG

True, but that was not news to anyone :)

> Doubtless the RFC Editor will fix it but I could point some of these out to you

That'd be helpful; please send me a mail with those off-list.

Cheers,
Ari

P.S. I'll be out of office for a couple of weeks, so it may take a while before I have a chance to follow up on this

---

From: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 11:52:16 +0200

<tp>inline</tp>
--- Original Message -----
From: "Ari Keranen" <[email-masked]>
To: "t.petch" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "IPv6 Operations" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 11:33 AM
> an RFC, I hope that you will find these comments helpful

Thanks for the feedback! As Jari already mentioned, we haven't fixed our plans
regarding how and if these results should be published, but if there is interest
in the WG, v6ops RFC is indeed one good option.

<tp>
I mean the graph PDFs, where you have the URI in the text but not in the
References, I would like it at least in the latter, less concerned about the
former.
</tp>

> I find the X-axis of the graphs unclear; time presumably, but what time?

It's the sequence number of the measurement run; so something like "time in 3
hour steps since the start of the tests". Probably hours (or even time and date)
would work better here.

<tp>
Yes, date and time would be lovely; I thought it was measurement run but did not
have a start point and the interval was not obvious.
</tp>

<tp>
Disagree; we know that the availability of IPv6 is negligible but we do not know
how much it is, and a hard data point at a point in time will provide a valuable
record.  I was surprised at how small it was, I would have guessed 10-20% ( but
then I am probably misled but the amount of traffic on the v6ops list:-)
</tp>

<tp>
I hope you do; Fred has indicated a willingness to help.  I cannot think of a
way to put it without being unfair to Fred, but it is an offer never to spurn.

Tom Petch
</tp>
Cheers,
Ari

P.S. I'll be out of office for a couple of weeks, so it may take a while before
I have a chance to follow up on this

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:32:32 -0400

> > coworkers. I know some do, I don't. Different ways of working.

FWIW, I (and I suspect a lot of readers of this list), at best "skim"
email threads and hit "D" for large chunks of them.

If you want my attention, make it count. If you can't take the time to
write something succinct and somewhat self-contained, but instead
think it better to contribute to a thread with 200+ messages, do not
think for a second that everyone (or even many) are paying more than
superficial attention.

Case in point, I only read the above because I generally find Joel's
postings worth my time to look at. Can't say that for a lot of other
postings. Especially from those who post disproportionately and
excessively.

Fred Baker <[email-masked]> writes:

> agreed. The problem with simply sending an email to open a
>  discussion thread or posing a "lightning round" kind of talk is
>  that the basic proposal gets lost in the noise and the thread
>  invariably migrates.

These lists have way too much noise to spend an hour a day of valuable
time reading them in the hope there is one tidbit of useful
information.

Thomas

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:58:34 +0100

> realistically given that there have been something like 21795 drafts since March 1996 when the tools archive begins and 4435 RFCs in the same timeframe our success rate is way higher than say the p…

Sometimes it's useful to publish a -00 just to a) be a handy reference for discussion when a topic comes up on multiple discussion lists, so you don't have to repeat information that's then available in one place and b) gauge support or interest in a topic.

On draft-keranen-ipv6day-measurements, it could be published as an individual submission or a separate paper.   

If it's of interest to the authors on W6D I looked at the top 200 UK Alexa sites and 16 had AAAA records added for www.<domain>, all accessible, though while all were available via http and ping, traceroute failed for many.   Most of the sites were global domains, like Google, Yahoo and Facebook, with the BBC the only UK-specific site participating in the Alexa UK 200.

Tim