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

John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> Wed, 22 July 2020 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.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 68B453A097F for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=b2JOLXGp; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=NnCZewlH
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 qKrGayFN2_eU for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B931E3A092E for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 08:38:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 73438 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2020 15:38:08 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=11edc.5f185d60.k2007; i=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=GhKQWeRiNqmVTTtwEIje49n5EpXekjIb3JpvJh4kcCs=; b=b2JOLXGpuz1TfDCztwzwTTTAMAW0JyHwFlYRx8nfdv7yW7mNpRej/Hbf4cUVjzH17d235G4O2rpIf7SAxl7N7QUWNgnPQxqJxK56Zbw/7S7+RItYGZyjFfipSaoYOVE4cqaEQyE5/oLtupUqupBMSzyZ9RvzFfY0+g3EFBv/RpWrE62wm+z4mH6cnLzXEV8Qgr6n14GGcWvLwAMjQtI+UrVsz0R5yGNCPuRsW5qQdfO4LKnNMQmmABbAEKGtyF4h
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type; s=11edc.5f185d60.k2007; olt=johnl-iecc.com@submit.iecc.com; bh=GhKQWeRiNqmVTTtwEIje49n5EpXekjIb3JpvJh4kcCs=; b=NnCZewlHptEzHFb2Ta/HewTU/N17TjcL+pJjzTvHTA1oxJwyEANr6duAyFHkd0IfFPlh7YLN2xbe6YE8haX3oxfyrYY7De7RCzywUrbdm8RMUd+hHO+o4aLRdYUh9rNmmf3J7Upwcua5+ncnKfjKKVjXxq8YqRtb+FK/JayNkFicyffp0bPlrBfsk/YRkhvvVBiIVQXT1FMibPvkYFYiUs8JJuv7pYAXIKV0ClWr76CpDu5xHF9NEOiDxqRtpFJI
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPSA (TLS1.3 ECDHE-RSA AES-256-GCM AEAD, johnl@iecc.com) via TCP6; 22 Jul 2020 15:38:08 -0000
Date: 22 Jul 2020 11:38:07 -0400
Message-ID: <fb26337f-42e6-6ce-2d92-c0a63936fe31@taugh.com>
From: "John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: "Toerless Eckert" <tte@cs.fau.de>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20200722151110.GM13675@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <20200722040028.728C81D5EB94@ary.qy> <0355ce38-cb6d-d4da-52e0-6176e529ca5f@gmail.com> <e60ef33-3f73-4e39-c73e-ea107da2b587@taugh.com> <20200722151110.GM13675@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/iN5NWM2R6Vb65gow1axA-UINYK0>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] clusterpation, was 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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:38:13 -0000

> Obviously we could invent a new RFC publication status like "conditional",
> so anything with unresolved normative references gets first published
> as a conditional RFC having a new normative section of conditional
> normative dependencies, pointing to the draft versions.
>
> As soon as ALL the required normative references exist as RFCs too,
> they are all updated in status from conditional to whatever their
> ultimate target status was.

If we're going to republish RFCs I would rather address the general 
versioning question rather than just this special case.  But for this 
special case, I still think a better route is to push WGs to deal with 
drafts in an order that doesn't produce huge clusters.

Some of the drafts in C238 were so old that I worry that the world may 
have changed while the drafts snoozed.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly