Re: [arch-d] 2 questions (groups) to IAB

Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org> Tue, 28 July 2020 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <csp@csperkins.org>
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 47AB53A0CB3; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:13:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=csperkins.org
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 npcC0sVTdQqL; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haggis.mythic-beasts.com (haggis.mythic-beasts.com [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:86:1000:0:2:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F9663A0CB1; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 07:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=csperkins.org; s=mythic-beasts-k1; h=To:Date:From:Subject; bh=RHC5OkFTR1WnZKf7u8E7HQr/QWrwHuZZCd/m/eDPV1s=; b=v7f3JLiHJMyEb22foR/SfShR7H Ys7PJIZwtwQWhEzvfVTY4V3PExzuqX4cGBnkM+fCUds4uDJOwAsNqfPFooLQSp1sUmGh7YWFTrMd7 ShLcwL9A4O6nx5zRlPhInlE+uC2XvF/L/0kgEgPjKGWrygvV79Yyo58evlit08/hilHGiPgDZQZp7 lzRoweTrFBGU9t+oWE4uWk/qR9zD8/I2QG9uRnTmcSOGeEvy3KL8gPeXuiciZugl8smBZ2HFPhFhE OVrMMXpXK244jNVVdOteQamYDHT2hvxN33iOGzIUhzv+VgtuxGNjflYuqsYXrk5BZ8/xAE+ElfWMF aVR017Hw==;
Received: from [81.187.2.149] (port=44356 helo=[192.168.0.80]) by haggis.mythic-beasts.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.3) (envelope-from <csp@csperkins.org>) id 1k0QM6-0002JA-FC; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:13:22 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
From: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200728122324.GE1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 15:13:08 +0100
Cc: iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3F1656D3-DDC6-4E46-9BF7-C99B39167CC8@csperkins.org>
References: <20200728122324.GE1772@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
To: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/4Kxu-sNZiLwOj0B5KhkWcPITU3o>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] 2 questions (groups) to IAB
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: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:13:26 -0000


> On 28 Jul 2020, at 13:23, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
> 
> Dear IAB,
> 
> Q1: Community discussion with IAB about their workshop/programs
> 
> Could the IAB please present a short statement about how the IAB decides
> what workshops to run and when to start a new program? Would the IAB be                                
> open to receiving suggestions from the community, and how would those
> suggestions be handled?
> 
> Q2: IAB and evolving IP
> 
> IETF chair has declared in liaison 1677, that "IETF maintains copyright
> and change control for the IP specifications" and "extensions or modifications
> to IETF technologies must be discussed with the IETF before any are worked
> on in other SDOs". In addition, IAB is chartered with external liaison and
> architectural oversight. With this role, i would respectfully like to ask
> IAB about he following issue:
> 
> There is interest from contributors working inside IETF as well as
> outside researchers and SDO such as ITU-T to investigate options for
> future IP/network layer packet/protocol evolution withing but also beyond
> those options that could naturally evolve from the considerations of RFC4775.
> 
> This could be seen as similar to what was done 30 years ago in IP-NG through
> e.g.g: TUBA, TP/IX, CATNIP, IPAE, SIP, PIP and so on. Except that the
> requirements for such investigations are different from those in 1990th
> (IPv4 address space exhaustion). For example the networks to which the
> desired benefits might most apply would not necessarily have to be primarily
> the Internet.
> 
> What is in the opinion of IAB the right place to do this work in the community,
> e.g., IAB workshop/program, IETF experimental WG, some other new org form ?
> How does IAB think it should be involved in such an effort ?
> 
> Note: IRTF chair has already stated that he considers architecture investigation
> into generic network header encoding options as a pure engineering and therefore
> non-research topic and thinks it is unsuitable for an IRTF RG.
> I disagree, but that was his statement he made to me.

We had a single hallway conversation about this topic at the Singapore IETF 106 meeting. What I recall saying was that I thought the specific topic you raised was better suited to a longer-term engineering effort in IETF than to an IRTF research group, not that the broader topic was forever out of scope for IRTF. 

Colin



> Lastly: Where can i find the definition as to what packet protocol
> formats would or would not fall into the IETF chairs "IETF ... copyright
> and change control for the IP specifications" ?  E.g.: would any newly
> designed protocol be subject to IETF copyright claims if it can be
> made interoperable in some fashion with IPv4 or IPv6 ? Or is it just
> the naming aspect of "InternetworkProtocol" ? I do not understand
> the assessment criteria. 
> 
> This question is quite important because without such definition,
> it is impossible to determine which proposed protocols Alissas liaison 1677
> ask against other SDO applies to.
> 
> Thank you very much
>    Toerless Eckert
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss



-- 
Colin Perkins
https://csperkins.org/