[arch-d] The six points (was: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.txt)
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 30 August 2020 11:48 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 963193A1614 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.68
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.68 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 4-WkRGlNfLpB for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 420813A08EB for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:47:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.143.240]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 07UBkvBR029347 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:47:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1598788028; x=1598874428; i=@elandsys.com; bh=66NYjnII5CQo2RhwKNt/L8xrmGS1+5IGcCEiH1l0zO4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=gWc4ZgMShRVqbLvaEhI3ZIKVRO4xz4CRHEwsfmBlRWJB4N8C8Y1wrBfyhQs0tE62V YuvMsTnJ65/GCT8cUoqkuXSAlBLoWLo3H0HDtNeYqXWccJ/apHESE9LQmw9nwCy81X +XsOcargKI/9YsOmv2tMhINoPEV4AUHCX4ab/5iM=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200830031843.0f773f70@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 04:45:35 -0700
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <23A7182C-B168-47F2-BDC0-1161BA418E01@kuehlewind.net>
References: <159798064208.3623.5922220323843951634@ietfa.amsl.com> <734c5859-e2f0-c3ed-c0b5-964c82c14365@gmail.com> <590E1794-EBDA-4BA7-A12B-4CC82710EE16@tzi.org> <2aa0c458-2f4f-a818-e25c-223e8187b212@nthpermutation.com> <31D31ACE-B235-46D6-A94F-805516697621@tzi.org> <CDDE34C4-F56B-4FAB-B5EF-6EABE33867EB@kuehlewind.net> <569362d2-f04d-046f-d1d3-e08a909dd0f9@gmail.com> <C22CBFC9-2BA0-4899-A95D-32202627132B@kuehlewind.net> <32e47d54-daff-c42b-7a6c-d1ee30cebbad@gmail.com> <23A7182C-B168-47F2-BDC0-1161BA418E01@kuehlewind.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/RvfOh3bma2zVMYW0yDYYKmHBdZM>
Subject: [arch-d] The six points (was: I-D Action: draft-carpenter-rfced-model-00.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: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 11:48:03 -0000
Hi Mirja, I am replying on a different mailing list as my response is not directly related to what is being discussed on RFC Future. At 04:54 AM 25-08-2020, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: >So I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "this >whole class of issue" but given the IAB also >appoints the ISE and the IRTF chair, as well as >reviews RGs, I would actually say that the IAB does already deal with that. > >I agree that I would also like to see the IAB >focusing more on architecture but I think this >is not because the IAB itself is too busy. It >depends a lot on the specific people on IAB >which topics are discussed and I would >charterize the work of the IAB rather as >identifying and flagging problem/gaps than >developing technology. After all I would say >that often members of the IAB are people who are >deeply involved in the work in the IETF and >would probably do this architectural thinking >and analysis anyway but the IAB and IAB program >provide a forum to anchor this work and discuss >in a group. Progress on these things however >often strongly depends on how busy these people >are in their day jobs otherwise. However, I >believe that's rather a separate topic. > >But because the members of the IAB do usually >cover a board set of expertise in different >areas of the IETF, usually including ex-ADs, >working group chairs, and of course document >authors, and have experience with interactions >for all RFC streams that we have currently, I >actually believe that this group of people is >well set up for the task. However, I don't >necessarily want to argue for the IAB being the >right choice but I definitely think it's the >better choice than ISOC. What's missing in the >current setup is a clear description of responsibilities. One of the roles of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is "to perform in-depth reviews of particular architectural issues". The results of that is to produce a report which may give advice to the IETF community. Over the years, I don't remember seeing (IAB) reports which are used by the "IETF community" to resolve architectural issues or architectural debates. I'll mention an issue related to the IPv6 standard even though it might end up being a distraction. I did not see any "thinking of analysis" from the IAB to identify or flag problems or gaps in what became an Internet Standard. I have seen messages on various topics in which it was pointed out that people are busy or that the people have day jobs. It conveys the idea that the activities are usually carried out as a hobby. The responsibilities of the IAB are described in six points, with architectural oversight being one of them. One of the points, which is RFC Series and IANA, turned into an appointment role either because IAB members were busy or for some other reason. I don't recall the IAB doing much in policy matters except for the occasional statement which would be relevant to one's special interests. Nowadays, we have the 4+1 internets. Things like that when one takes a one-sided approach to what was once the Internet. Regards, S. Moonesamy