[rfc-i] My comments on http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-kowack-rfc-editor-model-v2-00.txt

Dave CROCKER dhc2 at dcrocker.net
Tue Nov 16 15:52:00 PST 2010


Cj is zero, at least for this participating C; let's not pursue the question of 
possible metaphysical influences of the non-participating C.  I haven't left 
yet.  You folk are stuck with my baseline "reality-lag"  Given that that's 
usually pretty high, that might suffice as a replacement.

Unfortunately, your equation produces problematic results if either discussant 
has no jet lag.  I doubt that you want an equation that gives that much control 
to either participant.  On the other hand, the IETF process does tend towards 
giving one person a veto.  So perhaps your equation is more representative than 
we'd like to admit.

The components of the sqrt function probably need to be summed, rather than 
multiplied.   Whether some additional amplification factor is needed is a 
different question...

d/

On 11/17/2010 7:42 AM, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> Let Cj be the jet-lag coefficient for Crocker (either of them)
>
> Let Cs be the subtlety coefficient for Crocker
>
> Let M be a measure of misunderstanding and cofusion.
>
> Then:
>
>        2 x SQRT(Lj x Cj)
> M =   -----------------
>            1 - Cs

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list