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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 07 July 2020 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 5BC293A09B5 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.154
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 DBWUXDCUbaBO for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BED9D3A09B4 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:39:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.204.255]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 0677co2o023739 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1594107543; x=1594193943; i=@elandsys.com; bh=aeLZjqd3o58l9Ypk20M5Y8S0Zo4GNsMzZ4lO/mgo+cw=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=XAIBTyMXW22/IWdmTBhq+i/5U0gspQeckWdT6jPyTEv9UzBQybFgjsboknkSY5ry/ jJu3T01dtVQRAtEVatHLDdRCRNc3NcJwfrsghBKd2v87QmX94AlQGxgd28jxQG+Gzb LaeSC++sD0FpFcIwD1iOY/82h/5l5WrSCxiR3Y6w=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200706152350.0ace2bd8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2020 16:18:36 -0700
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <087DBE75-7103-4D82-8878-59F1E53592C8@apple.com>
References: <087DBE75-7103-4D82-8878-59F1E53592C8@apple.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/IjyAImUQApFk-o_WRba051OoLlQ>
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 07:39:17 -0000

Hi Tommy,
At 12:01 PM 06-07-2020, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>The IAB is considering starting a new program that would look at the 
>Evolvability, Deployability, and Maintainability of Internet 
>protocols. The description of the program is included at the bottom 
>of this email.
>
>We'd like to get feedback on the proposed program topic and 
>description. We'll be considering this over the next few weeks, and 
>your thoughts and input are welcome!

One of the roles of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is to 
"provide oversight of the architecture for the protocols and 
procedures used by the Internet".  It is not a good idea, in my 
opinion, to stray too far from that role by, for example, replicating 
the role of the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) or being 
involved in matters which are not under its (RFC) policy authority.

I doubt that it is possible to make "running code" part of the 
working group process unless "running code" is interpreted as 
implementing a specification as software-in-the-lab.

In 2017, the IAB issued a response to FCC-17-89.  It stated that "The 
IETF TRANS working group is nearing completion of work on a revision 
to Certificate Transparency".  The work is still incomplete.

Is setting up a program to tackle a people problem is not a good 
recipe for success?  I suggest giving some thought to that.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy