Re: [arch-d] deprecating Postel's principle- considered harmful

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Wed, 08 May 2019 05:26 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 7417C120086; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:26:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vK1hgtqmmIoO; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A796120134; Tue, 7 May 2019 22:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.106] (p54A6CC75.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.166.204.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 44zQ1r3FfmzyWK; Wed, 8 May 2019 07:26:24 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <DBD4837F-299B-497C-8922-AFF858B06C0F@strayalpha.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2019 07:26:23 +0200
Cc: "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 578985982.102707-8d6dde1d9ef2d7323125be8b29591818
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EDB037CE-F16A-4392-B36C-F44E30F29753@tzi.org>
References: <F64C10EAA68C8044B33656FA214632C89F024CD3@MISOUT7MSGUSRDE.ITServices.sbc.com> <CALaySJJDHg5j9Z7+noS=YXoNROqdsbJ6coEECtLtbJ6fWJ3xsQ@mail.gmail.com> <DBD4837F-299B-497C-8922-AFF858B06C0F@strayalpha.com>
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/9HKF5_RmTx_JrzqlCRLD1fbgtxY>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] deprecating Postel's principle- considered harmful
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: Wed, 08 May 2019 05:26:29 -0000

Like the end-to-end principle, the robustness principle is one of the most misunderstood, misapplied design principles in networking.  That doesn’t make either principle wrong, it just seems they need good explanations.  Documenting the results of misapplying the robustness principle (including the degenerated end state that I call “soup”) is a good thing, but should be done under the correct heading.  “Deprecating” it is not.

Grüße, Carsten