Re: [arch-d] I-D Action: draft-iab-for-the-users-01.txt

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2019 00:02 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 3029D120826 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:02:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 2i0Wbwyo78pE for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:01:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6344120091 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:01:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id r4so2558968pfl.7 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:01:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/J419yJyfD2881M8vLGtG5184Unah6PdqYTaU8GFOOg=; b=Ur1aZJNqvIDNdW0/S4pbJTCmERffufRL89vVLMmPNQtLhI1RB8ktlPctaSo+tcNiOG ieqKM043jrpVTfcTLjZY993wMEojWDHxiaRVs28rWuolhkSTrTqiH+sL6m9p+J53h0Ah XMAqATxzFYWqlfDxIU37KUYOvzsGXD+Mdxp+5kcn6pDJJruHs4YCYnOD050DA9BZOh6E K1oCcR1EOsb+lHvOYP2AF77NTFkwiuh2VZHxTwmTjNVH+6HM3UMxfrbKNwSxsfnvkxOt kpagb6bfqpOFJ8gn4LoZF2Verqc9ZNOs3CrkvR7WqKnwgisNYEEsHl/BoV2WD1gPOv8b 0Hkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/J419yJyfD2881M8vLGtG5184Unah6PdqYTaU8GFOOg=; b=H5KZrY69CYUfALy5ir7hO3xbEDt0dqe2lvIL973QoAFK8Zitz0l/Z0p69M1h5QdwA4 g1fJOJkM2HPqVaIHtcYx/Q3ZbI6+s1VFKwUt+62cMC95JvUeLauMUNFLARe+AJtao8lZ vZcnxjJkAOixZj8Nvu4sgf7gm//uOpSx/FqHCvMFsJsKjZyRFDKqTiMNGeTZg0AuL0UQ bSDRIgMZTEsnEHTLgpbG/5qMDBTyX/IJbv7SdA9TDPkMH9VF6Ojtw1Er8q4vMobo5uRO DELb7z0DC8Tl1sHaRjpVOCey8M28AL9CUIhrIm/GRpzepGsfMov0AdvwuC08B6vWqlKa xRJw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXxjQiKBvcbhP4Ml5d0w88KDVldj38OEfcbQphS3g/x0i0Fw4WJ YrFB/qZTEK6JruyVi6oh3ojrjdOj
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxhK3kqxhtyzSLTNoZsXWQjE0oGqg4kuI+pRrUB/VmTfn5eiD2UCVri5WF+rTSrmJMc9z2gcg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:ec50:: with SMTP id r16mr12593844pgj.284.1574380914685; Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:01:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.151.10] (dhcp-970a.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.151.10]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x9sm1698514pgt.66.2019.11.21.16.01.52 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:01:53 -0800 (PST)
To: Joe Touch <touch@strayalpha.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <157403781839.6404.2709540591932973827@ietfa.amsl.com> <8a8af789-cf6a-eea1-b21c-d4c90fd9923e@gmail.com> <545A2146-41EA-4D80-8E8E-4AC8E93D426E@mnot.net> <00130ecc-486b-4133-8ef3-a2e99e0e756e@gmail.com> <7D8D3808-2780-4546-8713-C2F524F47973@strayalpha.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eef7bfa2-f8a8-e1d1-1682-e114369bdd74@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:01:51 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7D8D3808-2780-4546-8713-C2F524F47973@strayalpha.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/RFinfUQJvcdbS2v43Eyuq7pwau8>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] I-D Action: draft-iab-for-the-users-01.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: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:02:00 -0000

On 22-Nov-19 04:31, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 18 Nov 2019, at 9:29 am, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's a lot of good stuff in this draft. Just one point caught my eye:
>>
>>> 4.6.  Deprioritising Internal Needs
>>>
>>>  There are a number of needs that are very visible to us as
>>>  specification authors, but should explicitly not be prioritised over
>>>  the needs of end users.
>>>
>>>  These include: convenience for document editors, IETF process
>>>  matters, and "architectural purity".
>>
>> I suggest making the last point: "architectural purity" for its own sake.
>> There are certainly many cases where the argument *for* architectural
>> purity is the principle of least astonishment, which directly benefits
>> the user experience.
> 
> Current “user needs” aren’t always benefit the system as a whole nor the needs of users in the future.
> 
> "Architectural purity” can be (and should be) representing the latter and need not be considered “internal”.

I agree. The point is quite subtle, but I thought that "for its own sake"
covered it. 

> 
>> Another point that occurs to me is whether the draft should say something
>> about user interface issues. Of course that topic is out of IETF scope,
> 
> I’m trying to understand how that makes any sense for a group that is writing about protocols and communication architectures.

We don't design UIs. But what we do constrains and biases the choices that the UI designer makes. 
 
> I’m assuming it comes from the “the API is out of scope” error that was made many years ago - which confuses the API *instance* with the upper layer interface architecture. RFC793 gives a great example of the latter (the abstract “user commands’). In subsequent work, the absence of that interface as IETF work was a mistake.

I think the argument is indeed quite similar. The protocol design constrains and biases the API design. And I don't think "out of scope" is really such a bright line. The POSIX API follows RFC3493 quite closely, as does WinSock. Sadly POSIX doesn't support RFC3542, which is a fail.

Please look at draft-ietf-anima-grasp-api-04 for a current example.

   Brian
> 
> I hope this doc isn’t trying to propagate that error.
> 
> Joe