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

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 22 July 2020 04:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F9DE3A0DA6 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dGxRBrTUCE9g for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::442]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C1A703A0DA4 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s26so535083pfm.4 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/1hQgJPaRGxKMDwWhCYYZanDfRwFpAV/L/ixvkVDQ+8=; b=k4Cj5bjU3Sg31TL/Rcx1OuPu8F+HzrBch7OEXd+0STRfbRRuIgdEuLwfgge5BEhsb0 HVKuxDqg6ytJGuWot7GUYz0VTlYxc+sJ2JrTsMZQqlLeufMKivAbtek3868JrYfKjGcQ fiuXqia7Vl5KxNCEiaf5601EoxxVYj4jjwzHAXvtpp/LkPTKDC7IktMuMSvkJOsaLeKa VC38CyKlmk0EPm6gRpj06kxpt1GdJjCnLdpprJ9JZidKYMxBAZ7oCPgMZ6yM8Wrhm8oc h8O4z43J18ZQnvYVAj51IdUktOB49BVyFXRTpcDD/uIC4J5WMdhrnCSPUzqWRWZGEJs/ nW5w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=/1hQgJPaRGxKMDwWhCYYZanDfRwFpAV/L/ixvkVDQ+8=; b=iSsKDQ4FDrWWWkB3q/romtFOgnN2OW/Rcrr3AeSjuGOwQGznQhj9qcsLj6Tq6D+0ht gjhVX3+YvFGsvBb3DHbIeueQe1bw/WUaqcDSIaNiVFpdEKttv6l4bmi0YxM4oRuhqXNk T3Mo9JeQlgqyCr47jnQE8W538sPJKKcrsK4HVUNrgGBMZAhVJ9ImioS2bbDdOWRf37aY 5Kjmdq34Yoj4JWKNkbMt7V6gMN+vYm3JCBRdc+YKMXDFpsP2DgJ03FroSZ2PunYZzaV7 KasWFpOEkoZLGwyAqjCus4H1vYrJTtNv2SEd+FXhQPYG87xETHYqxHJD5ZFVmKioRMU7 MWzw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531H0KiZjr80aeoMFheoWwHzNDwCzeTpPHFwxHVQZa7Mwy4mavLL E9fYC3yC9tgzUPGqrtiCC2KG7Cxb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyn6dbTapeRCp2HdP1mHPI8wXiDMuWhNabFYYkPmoTp2Bu4QD0tuRW8eZUDHhFwevcj/eftHg==
X-Received: by 2002:a62:7847:: with SMTP id t68mr28032907pfc.112.1595393264677; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:47:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id c187sm21494461pfc.146.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:47:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: John Levine <>,
References: <20200722040028.728C81D5EB94@ary.qy>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:47:41 +1200
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: <20200722040028.728C81D5EB94@ary.qy>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was Proposed IAB program: Evolvability, Deployability , & Maintainability.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 04:47:48 -0000

Hi John,

On 22-Jul-20 16:00, John Levine wrote:
> In article <> you write:
>> Because (for reasons I don't understand) I'm involved in AUTH48 processing
>> for RTCWeb, I find myself wondering whether the proposed IAB program might
>> include considering ways to avoid C-238-style protocol specification
>> clusters, whether from the point of view of architectural oversight,
>> standards process oversight, or RFC Editor oversight.
> I think we all agree that we don't ever want to see another document
> cluster as large or as long-lived as C238.
> But I would rather not attempt to invent processes to try and guess
> how best to prevent hypothetical superclusters. I'd rather that the
> RPC and I (or a future RSE) work informally with ADs and WG chairs
> when we see a potentially large cluster forming, or worse when a
> document is about to link two normal sized clusters into a big one.

That would be wise, but by the time anybody notices, it may be too
late. I do agree that the answer is not to add more process. The 
question on the table, I think, is what factors lead to the formation
of such a cluster, and what design issues should be considered to avoid
it? (Plus the old newtrk question: how can we document clusters of
documents usefully for implementers and operators?)