Re: [arch-d] I-D Action: draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04.txt

Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <touch@strayalpha.com>
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 813FD120048 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:24:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=strayalpha.com
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 WGEZCEIKrQVj for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:24:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server217-3.web-hosting.com (server217-3.web-hosting.com [198.54.115.226]) (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 A5240120033 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:24:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=strayalpha.com; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Mime-Version: Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=xeUVQwvatllz+LHiahuK9YrSooGT0ckflSfLT/Y/gqA=; b=Mk6lDe8ZMRXiDjn4o4ditCk/1 c+xx46o4nqF9LXLD6kta1/WhJscSpXnQO3DefZPJfuQ8a3E37ZUcPaOz7MkGt9hn5haAb7zYp/xPT VZDq7uD+Ltn0FuVNd2xA7EYEmxkS32RzYy8vJCnpggVQ3EzlrGU3whWGOWCbXGDEcg4Sh87zhHtik +q0MGWo8DgOouYUxUwhlD1PTDqHRmizrwfxiuQ421vAOV++Prt1mHeomcdjOBNzDPx7MjIXeaHyom lRFRcXp2Gbm/LxB8UQt6Q0ynHvBQlku+76RLsugQ43rrwXizdMMygkfwQ4A0cPP01lbHuJvNX7Enu tMNp/Pv1A==;
Received: from cpe-172-250-225-198.socal.res.rr.com ([172.250.225.198]:58694 helo=[192.168.1.10]) by server217.web-hosting.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <touch@strayalpha.com>) id 1iRna0-000pvV-19; Mon, 04 Nov 2019 20:24:24 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
In-Reply-To: <d6c4e7b7-1a43-7859-427a-35ebf1343fcf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:24:19 -0800
Cc: iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E0A4C31A-122B-4DBC-B494-9737CF1D4175@strayalpha.com>
References: <157284936054.13440.20144182660413459@ietfa.amsl.com> <d6c4e7b7-1a43-7859-427a-35ebf1343fcf@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server217.web-hosting.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - strayalpha.com
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: server217.web-hosting.com: authenticated_id: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Authenticated-Sender: server217.web-hosting.com: touch@strayalpha.com
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/8OZctrT3Suk6rOJNlIEPdQn0Mbk>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] I-D Action: draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-04.txt
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, 05 Nov 2019 01:24:26 -0000


> On Nov 4, 2019, at 5:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the updates, but I still have concerns about this draft.
> 
>> Abstract
> ....
>>   For a protocol
>>   that is actively maintained, the robustness principle can, and
>>   should, be avoided.
> 
> To be blunt, I don't think there is community consensus for this
> statement. Now the IAB can of course express an opinion, but for
> something as contentious as this, I think it needs to be labelled
> as an opinion statement, especially in the Abstract which tends
> to bias the reader's mindset. Or a more neutral phrasing could
> be used; for example:
> 
> For a protocol that is actively maintained, the impact of
> applying the robustness principle should be carefully considered.

FWIW, even that should have the “in the IAB’s opinion’ as a preface.

However, if that’s not a requirement for ALL such docs out of the IAB, then it should be. These aren’t consensus documents.

Joe