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

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Tue, 07 July 2020 03:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 841D23A003B for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:53:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.798 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelhalpern.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 8mC5DGlkosrY for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (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 412083A0039 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B17pX09PQz6G8Vq; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelhalpern.com; s=2.tigertech; t=1594094036; bh=Y+ch6x9yvtvaPTMK0gkbJPQ9N/Av65AzQUzTm/xzweo=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UaYjJsyYCo2ddI4iHbRmi+NBoRlbNjSFPldSIEtBnxJ/IDIFyNJ5ue8fHloBadSpL v3BZARIE6BaX8eitPaBy0kvFpyqHAo+wq3kjABXrzokMXsMtKlgBn4jPxse/SNkzXI XG+h7bOsYycW7nmmeI59YXAOJci7dvAIwTqbHHQ0=
X-Quarantine-ID: <596sJssUA3-1>
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at a2.tigertech.net
Received: from [192.168.128.43] (209-255-163-147.ip.mcleodusa.net [209.255.163.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B17pW3khFz6G8Vr; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 20:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, "architecture-discuss@iab.org" <architecture-discuss@iab.org>
References: <087DBE75-7103-4D82-8878-59F1E53592C8@apple.com> <a09f3c82-42cd-752f-f071-359ed117fdec@gmail.com> <393e63e8-85db-755b-4e11-509670ed6332@cs.tcd.ie> <f8811bcf-72f3-b489-e893-949fd5f7ab45@gmail.com>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Message-ID: <120729a2-b610-c61e-9f12-df1e859add74@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2020 23:53:54 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f8811bcf-72f3-b489-e893-949fd5f7ab45@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/Dy81VrPke5jZvBVP3ihdJghL_qE>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability.
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, 07 Jul 2020 03:53:58 -0000

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.

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
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>