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

Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Tue, 07 July 2020 04:28 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 DD4213A078A for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=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 (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=UpOksEvQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=SWxeKTYp
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 Q_olZ_F30_9u for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B8F3A0789 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 21:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03305C00A8 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:28:01 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=hJYm+qg+kkyP7HbN4VJ8O+P4kJ6t+QC xc8j1tMzYZc4=; b=UpOksEvQvzXh3MJew6RJdTwmR8xiMTdONLcaH1TsgMmpLbK dFQYNQvsqWJkotAg2yb9GgDfgdqYfn8OEMhh25tYL/sduJaC51lag+1ovjbyoJGD Opuoys60ISgbWiNcCj+mjNFbfeDWXeslATmplJHCG+xeu8hXrJThSsPTMuxMePy7 CylQbSsVgM30MhjVML8S6po5BHTCzg9s+qWTN5gUdtmHc8wSVVHNVc/8JQWnO/0w L4ADaXArEtoW7GljrGJq+18TqU5SNyHDmQJweSr4TnAxsQZ1Ka/vAOpAxD82NTLs 5MoU1oelXfQqMUYWiy3umD4zQvSdCzOriXEcPYg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=hJYm+q g+kkyP7HbN4VJ8O+P4kJ6t+QCxc8j1tMzYZc4=; b=SWxeKTYpeRABqL9Z713kZQ LBs496NxIOgfl5xrAqOmBqJELBlH+yrbAmeHxX8irpnDzMpDXAKwk4JkI40OTA78 6Wbe9Gs9//SUwjjdep+UqmaeouQOen1mUUXEY6kxQYpaOZJhcHM4zhcwJnyuOG18 gkJ5jGd0qLJ1shSDo7Te95TRyb8L8k5VJpK+yXq3O6KwjJEGDpuVrKwcxPS14GbT 9fzLCaaRmnFX8SS5UCLYVIoFZYJvJgnz0Bwxzz58X3rVSn+U1k3vKlL9D6twg+jV 2RoYBGOdpURuWzHxPPMkiFIPbOMYmfubI88CNAwee14iKMiU7op+//Fr5zd31EBg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:0fkDX2Ljv2k-yCYfG-qP2Z5Bs7QtSVH4tb7Cf-349dw-SAQvbjO1BA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudeggdekiecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepheefteduudduhedtkefhvd fhteelffdujeegjeffheffveekudeigfeuveekfeelnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgep tdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:0fkDX-L4S0_ADOYCizMeYGr4YWccsL94HGMnG3cusNlw5nRItdeEyg> <xmx:0fkDX2tcrGj9kMINwObVIEC-POEGmzylLhZd8vQbatImFiVZGk-gtg> <xmx:0fkDX7bn8q3AkeIaaj4nN5ms7GoKfUdzxuZQ4yh5TyXZTJD3U61xnQ> <xmx:0fkDX9qXkimpUGfmScx3RQzPgWzbmMOw8ci94RH-DJYR5nxrN9yz5A>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 90972E00B3; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:28:01 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-576-gfe2cd66-fm-20200629.001-gfe2cd668
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <fcb2be46-597f-4ae5-8266-484539c7592c@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a09f3c82-42cd-752f-f071-359ed117fdec@gmail.com>
References: <087DBE75-7103-4D82-8878-59F1E53592C8@apple.com> <a09f3c82-42cd-752f-f071-359ed117fdec@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2020 14:27:40 +1000
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/ER8u1US5a-TLYXjBxlY7A970djI>
Subject: [arch-d] =?utf-8?b?PT9VVEYtOD9RP1JlOl9fUHJvcG9zZWRfSUFCX3Byb2dy?= =?utf-8?q?am=3A=5FEvolvability=2C_=5FDeployability=3F=3D_=2C_=26_Maintain?= =?utf-8?q?ability=2E?=
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 04:28:04 -0000

Hi Tommy,

This looks like a good initiative.  If there is something the IAB can do to pave the way for multiple protocol communities, then that is good.  There are commonalities in the problems we face, so collating different means of managing those problems is valuable.

On Tue, Jul 7, 2020, at 08:05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> To what extent is the standards process itself the enemy of 
> Evolvability, Deployability, and Maintainability? 

>From my perspective, this is a relevant question for such a program.  But I don't see this program as having anything more than an input into other (parallel) work that examines this problem more closely.

More concretely, if this group decides that publishing an RFC is anathema to a particular goal, that is information for others to consider, and a problem to engineer around for this group.

This would seem to support the view that the IAB are well positioned to manage both processes :)