Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability.

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 07 July 2020 04:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65F683A0789 for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:26:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7OZJBnFaort4 for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0212F3A078A for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j19so12536908pgm.11 for <>; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8OD5fgqEmwFCtF/oKaJ6EQZz54HoiW2LO/G/9swLo6U=; b=ZjwocT9VtRePBXDXUao0rEMFRKMYAwPtOPOZBH70T4Bz6VevQ/esYbFtdmyjNOyOdE B6C4gAjo3af4Vxu4Br/tuuBv9Qfnv4/Eu0rrSLinhaxqUaA1yM0cmWNH++iqxT6IJjmt 1DZemwa55wVVcQHK4a9E/nCqy3rfQ4Otj5Y3fxkCjkcy6Nsnau85q4gFc8RwqJNVd75T b0ds/sfwXNYL0dd7HqDAJs0ATQCna8FijByJW5hD6AmD9GlypvmVqF5J36pWYLz3nN0+ FcUtd1Dpw2reQaJAbKGikFlzcazzzgxT9QhZezJLujWEqVhfyqFVXGO5PMMADZ598B32 2pNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8OD5fgqEmwFCtF/oKaJ6EQZz54HoiW2LO/G/9swLo6U=; b=RI8dCnFTwoQHSw8ncA1kTm5TFj1jfvsKYtF3pQG0qKkoc80ImA1uL08W1jM5j7806U pYOarWwbAAjmuzrib7csHmasT4pKeKWNT3WO+nloiEkX61WJoKuUbnNDKcbuYWlEijFh swnAQukb1eAMmwQa4mNW0C2wog6DJVyv5osAv7zC0+IuhVDbo9EiWuk3+dhCPRHaVCli NBe4TtkuDjG0PTzZZr9tKBL3bHu8HIV64YPkLUzzHu2WrsPRekSgrplYKyu/+s8Y32XV zIpLwNGH85lPzcqIzQqTlu4Y+LbCNLq54Of+Z+IUV5DTRL3n4QuS3frmd2GALxnEHjWO 1M8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5319hpUhd+jU9y2ynOaNu6/rV3r0JhK1YyD9K8V4HeA0o3sIrCMq WrTjkpYin7xtNgrVdyr27/LR5oi6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8JwcOHW/u+ibSu9u5bsSFcZev411Lhi/0M6j9Hhoe9L9NLKSxl8KnI89JIm4Hnkb3Y9H6cg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:8608:: with SMTP id x8mr45212189pfd.96.1594095984927; Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id o42sm970395pje.10.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>, "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 16:26:20 +1200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 04:26:27 -0000

On 07-Jul-20 15:53, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Brian, I doubt that we could have reached anything resembling rough 
> consensus on changes (to IPv6) every six months.  I suspect (although 
> this is very much a subjective guess) that focusing on such six-monthly 
> deliverables would have made it even harder to get agreement on the hard 
> issues that did finally get addressed (however badly) in the revision.

Well yes, it would have been extra work and six-monthly might be too
ambitious, but once every 6.5 years was definitely too little. The
underlying issue is that we don't have a mechanism for this at all,
so either people make one up (like Router Requirements, which also
seems to be a little out of date), or we leave implementors and
operators on their own with a heap of RFCs.


> Yours,
> Joel
> On 7/6/2020 11:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 07-Jul-20 13:14, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> Hi Brian,
>>> (Maybe not directly a question for you but...)
>> No, there are many people more qualified to answer than me for the SMTP
>> case. I'm pretty sure IPv6 would have gone more smoothly with 6-monthly
>> issues of "Node Requirements", though. There are too many interlocking
>> pieces and developers were left to make their own choices.
>>     Brian
>>> On 06/07/2020 23:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>>> SMTP has been the classical example for many years, and I suspect
>>>> that RTCWEB might furnish another good example of this problem before
>>>> long.
>>> Do we have evidence as to the (good, bad or neutral) impact
>>> of the stately pace of the evolution of email standards-
>>> track  RFCs? I could imagine the net effect being overall
>>> positive or negative but am unsure which may be the case. I
>>> suspect it may be more likely that the actual impact is not
>>> correlated with RFC numbers at all, but that may also be
>>> wrong.
>>> Cheers,
>>> S.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture-discuss mailing list