[arch-d] my summary of resilience thread (Was: possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience)
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 03 January 2020 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE04F12004A for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:13:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LUaCq8Cy6X2X for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:13:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0EDF120045 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 12:13:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8FFBE50 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:13:17 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mgV9eZTzd7I4 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:13:15 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2852FBE47 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 3 Jan 2020 20:13:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1578082395; bh=unC8u3NmgEpRpJquW6hHLfky2Fl5xHcNLYkqGPfOVUM=; h=Subject:From:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=x2MVJUFFjrrobx1Jo99m8K9P5tgpOK3iG0p8qCGsjllawCScythnQrTc97niRo/QB Ul/YZdWj2+o1lz7XqCMj+cyQgxja+J+UBtUSne1F2m0RhBfLRpAEjYKXOhrKn/a+vv Aswa4lwgftOS7sIBonExoww0/ogttNwKgdxsJJno=
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
To: architecture-discuss@iab.org
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <af3b1445-c574-befa-1ea5-e41fd4dd660a@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:13:13 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/2oihgWQ0I1kahS5UG-dorHXCnTE>
Subject: [arch-d] my summary of resilience thread (Was: possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2020 20:13:23 -0000
Hi all, Thanks for the ~70 messages on this over the holidays - I think that demonstrates a clear and thoughtful interest in the topic, which is great. One concern is that there were only a few people who said they'd do work (as opposed to comment on work), so we might not know for a while if this'll take off (and be useful) or not. I think that's ok, but feel free to send mail saying you would do work if that's the case. Meanwhile, my summary of the thread so far is below - please correct me if I've gotten anything badly wrong. (I'll offer this sub-thread to the IAB as a summary of the discussion - many people, IAB members included, are busy digesting things other than email over the holidays:-) Lastly, the initial idea for this originated from Terry Manderson and not from within the IAB - Terry told it to me over some beers at the very end of IETF105 in Montreal and I related it to the IAB, who were supportive. Now that we've seen that people don't think the idea is totally crazy, I think it's a good time to ack Terry for that. Terry's not responsible for any badness in charter-text of course - that'd be down to my or collective IAB ineptitude:-) Cheers, S. My notes on the thread [1] so far, roughly in order of how concrete the subsequent action seems (to me) to be. (1) Various folks noted that robustness is highly related to resilience, and that both may be terms-of-art for some people. I thought the message from Laurent [2] quoting Jeurgen Schoenwaelder captured that nicely. My guess is that a bit of charter editing to try embed that distinction may be worthwhile to avoid potential confusion. (2) Marc [3] suggested that another example (e.g. DDoS) might be useful to add so it's more clear that diversity is not a panacea. Seems reasonable. (3) Lucy [4] and others asked about sense#1 of the quoted definition of resilience. Seems to me the high level bit of the answer is "yes, that could be in scope" though of course work only happens when people volunteer to do it, (and then actually do it:-), so "in scope" is not at all the same as saying that something will happen. I think the "mostly" in the charter text is fine for that, but changing to "mostly, but not exclusively," would maybe be good. (As an aside, that sub-thread describing various things as "compression" is interesting, maybe even cute:-) (4) Toerless [5] asked about "membership" of the programme, raising both the issues of potential cliques and EAR related reasons why smokey-back-rooms are even less desirable today compared to a few years ago. I think that's one where the IAB should probably chat - it may indicate a need to change our conception of programmes and membership a bit, both to be more open and to handle those EAR-related issues. (Personally, I'd like if we could find a modus-operandi that's fully open, but that can also recognise a smaller set of folks as being active participants that the IAB think might usefully contribute.) (4) In a long sub-thread various people wondered whether the proposed programme would/could/should/should-not discuss various policy or layer-9 issues, such as centralisation, (that also had a bit of "#include <doh-discussion>"). I guess we'll have to see what the IAB make of that but FWIW, my take is that it generally makes sense for IAB programmes to not be limited to consideration of layers 1-8, but that no IAB programme ought be seen as the exclusive venue for any discussion, and nor does any IAB programme bind the IETF to anything. If the IAB agreed with that, I think that'd maybe mean that the technical consequences of such issues are in scope for discussion, but with two caveats: 1) we need to keep in mind that saying something is in-scope for a programme does not mean that anything will happen - as always that depends on someone doing (good) work on a topic, writing that up for others to discuss, and actually finishing the work and 2) there's still a preference for IETF work to be done in the IETF, so when/if anything in this space gets to be very concrete (i.e. protocol specific or BCP-like) it'd need to be decided in the IETF and will not be decided in/by this IAB programme. I don't think any charter-text change is needed for any of that. (5) There was a mention of things being done in ICANN, ITU or IGF rather than in an IAB programme. I don't think those ideas received much support that I could see, so don't think the charter needs changes for this. (In saying that, I'm not making any comment on whether or not it'd be a good or bad idea for those bodies to take up any related discussions.) [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/pZR9EYOhTIir0m_YDXQkUGPXwfk [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/iFQVe_1QdiT7JfQqxt9T_b3bp8w [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/pYATTKqH_Avi7D1tOGjz7XD1RHQ [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/qo4evXDIVVDhgNKQ0XzzSMsXwpM [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/6dqFdDrq8DXICx0hACx_rwob6nU
- [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet r… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Simon Leinen
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Yaakov Stein
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Ciavaglia, Laurent (Nokia - FR/Paris-Saclay)
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Andrew Campling
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian Trammell (IETF)
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… S Moonesamy
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Andrew Campling
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Randy Bush
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Andrew Campling
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… tony.li
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Andrew Campling
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Marc Blanchet
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Melinda Shore
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Scott Brim
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… S Moonesamy
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Yaakov Stein
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Patrik Fältström
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… John C Klensin
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… John Levine
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… S Moonesamy
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Christian
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Vittorio Bertola
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet r… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Christian
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Lucy Lynch
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Dan York
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Dan York
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Jared Mauch
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… John C Klensin
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet r… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- [arch-d] my summary of resilience thread (Was: po… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Toerless Eckert
- Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Intern… Jared Mauch