Re: [802SEC] 802-SEC reflector delay
Bob,
From my point of view, the subtext underlying the entire reflector delay
issue/discussion is the implications for LMSC electronic balloting.
While such delays can be minimized if not avoided when returning ballots
by sending them to an individual with a non "ieee.org" email address (to
avoid the delay for redirection through an IEEE server), individual
addressing is not an attractive option for the announcement of ballots
and sending informational updates.
Thanks,
wlq
"Robert D. Love" wrote:
>
> I am concerned about a far more fundamental problem with reflector delay,
> and that is the timing of our electronic balloting. Is there any way we can
> get the IEEE staff to investigate what is happening and correct it so that
> we can have confidence in setting schedules for WG electronic balloting?
> While the attached discussion is interesting, there is a very significant
> potential problem buried in non-reliable reflector transmission when all of
> the working groups are counting on the reflectors to conduct ballots on
> drafts.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Robert D. Love
> President, LAN Connect Consultants
> 7105 Leveret Circle Raleigh, NC 27615
> Phone: 919 848-6773 Mobile: 919 810-7816
> email: rdlove@ieee.org Fax: 208 978-1187
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Quackenbush" <billq@attglobal.net>
> To: "Rigsbee, Everett O" <everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com>
> Cc: "IEEE 802 SEC" <stds-802-sec@ieee.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] 802-SEC reflector delay
>
> >
> > Buzz,
> >
> > Actually what you detected is one of several cut and paste errors. I
> > used cut and paste a number of times in the generation of the table and
> > failed in several instances to then correctly edit the result. I have
> > made the corrections in the table quoted below.
> >
> > With the corrected data, it took my second message only 3 seconds to get
> > to from me to the IEEE server.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > wlq
> >
> > "Rigsbee, Everett O" wrote:
> > >
> > > Bill, Two interesting things that I note from this:
> > >
> > > 1. You 2nd message actually arrived before the 1st message arrived, so
> service is not even FIFO.
> > >
> > > 2. Your 2nd message took 40 minutes just to get to IEEE.
> > >
> > > It looks to me like your local email server is experiencing some serious
> difficulties. It's your SMTP not your KARMA !!! :-)
> > >
> > > Thanx, Buzz
> > > Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> > > Boeing - SSG
> > > PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> > > Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> > > (425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
> > > everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bill Quackenbush [mailto:billq@attglobal.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:23 PM
> > > To: IEEE 802 SEC
> > > Subject: [802SEC] 802-SEC reflector delay
> > >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I recognize that some/many/most of you may have little interest in this
> > > topic, but I find my recent experience with my emails on "802.20
> > > affirmation" rather curious.
> > >
> > > As you probably know, I sent an email on the above topic Tuesday and
> > > then resent the email on Wednesday as I had not received my copy for the
> > > initial email from the 802-SEC reflector. I have now received my copy
> > > from both transmissions, but after significant delays (> 34 hours and >
> > > 13 hours). Just for amusement, I asked Buzz Rigsbee for his copies on
> > > the emails. The total end to end delays for his copies were both under
> > > 7 minutes. (The delays times were extracted from the complete email
> > > headers. All times were converted to GMT.) The details are in the
> > > following table
> > >
> > > Any thoughts? Maybe I have the wrong karma.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > wlq
> > >
> > > In the following table, dates are in the format YYMMDD and
> > > times are in the format HH:MM:SS. All event times are GMT.
> > >
> > > Initial Initial Resent Resent
> > > Event/ email to email to email to email to
> > > Item wlq Buzz wlq Buzz
> > > ------ -------- -------- -------- --------
> > >
> > > Sent 030318 030318 030319 030319
> > > 19:11:55 19:11:55 15:56:29 15:56:29
> > >
> > > Received 030318 030318 030319 030319
> > > by 802-SEC 19:12:02 19:12:02 15:56:32 15:56:32
> > > reflector
> > >
> > > Received 030320 030318 030320 030319
> > > from 05:32:08 19:17:42 05:24:23 15:59:07
> > > 802-SEC
> > > reflector
> > >
> > > Last 030320 030318 030320 030319
> > > timestamp 05:32:08 19:18:28 05:24:23 15:59:15
> > > in header
> > >
> > > Total path 34:20:13 00:06:33 13:27:54 00:02:46
> > > delay
> > >
> > > 802-SEC 34:20:06 00:05:40 13:27:51 00:02:35
> > > reflector
> > > delay