Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Thu, 15 October 2020 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.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 025823A0DCD for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:14:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -11.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 vUpzArTPDTsi for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E5E53A0917 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Oct 2020 03:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3015; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1602756864; x=1603966464; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc: to:references; bh=ZkhPT+ZU68mqdN/puuNwQFnJWhj01b8JPxqu8zQZH5k=; b=ljA3Lbcc6fPp8JFeftJDqSLgZmF6d3SWkbRjngzlTUBKk2KayHlMGOmc Lj3irgI6Qj3EffqmwPJdPgt2G45CUKJfJyhmoyXB/Cve4e7Nyc99jGz6b soVnUO3nn1lesQrsi1MxpIQg8PD/ys1NTVQ3AHlyO1d/S0CzVD1tbP1NC I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AoAACWH4hf/xbLJq1gHAEBAQEBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?BARIBAQQEAQGBewcBAQsBgSKBB4FFASASLIQ9iCJgh3ImihGJe4YdgX0LAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQEBLwQBAYRKAoIJJjQJDgIDAQELAQEFAQEBAgEGBG2FaIVyAQEBAwEjVgU?= =?us-ascii?q?LCwQUKgICITYGE4MmgkwDDiCrBHaBMoVUglINgiSBOAGNUIIAgREnDBCCHy4?= =?us-ascii?q?+gQSBFoU6M4ItBLcdVIJ0gxaSTYULAx+hRiugXY5sg2ACBAYFAhWBVDqBVzM?= =?us-ascii?q?aCBsVZQGCPj4SGQ2ON44xPwMwAjYCBgEJAQEDCY5IAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.77,378,1596499200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="30315848"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-2.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 Oct 2020 10:14:20 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-61-108-145.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-108-145.cisco.com [10.61.108.145]) by aer-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 09FAEJvP015426 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:14:20 GMT
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Message-Id: <B81D51D0-8033-4669-B5BC-35722766B7A6@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9E022BCD-565D-4CAD-8465-1E438260BEBF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 12:14:19 +0200
In-Reply-To: <d5cbcd52-450f-67f0-55b9-6ef065d7b0b1@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <8fa06d77-e73b-aa15-683d-937e8841566f@gmail.com> <975E28FE326C22E8CD32DCC8@PSB> <5021a377-e9ca-1580-c2f0-3351b9f5fe04@huitema.net> <LO2P265MB05736C784B36942C7ECF71ECC2070@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <e80b6f1e-3949-b2ee-6e61-a2f3dfce9b0c@cs.tcd.ie> <586DC363-B5F8-4727-8734-815F3E17F345@gmail.com> <c5b37390-d463-fa35-215b-569698098d6a@cs.tcd.ie> <65CD5A4A-E7AD-4051-90A6-31AD536AB0AD@gmail.com> <e29dc18a-fd5d-ca0d-90a0-4ec840678054@gmail.com> <LO2P265MB0573F23F5C23ABD3933E49FDC2040@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <d5921a18-1cd4-5eea-ff96-70090680b54b@huitema.net> <LO2P265MB05732E22C376062F808746E3C2050@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <d5cbcd52-450f-67f0-55b9-6ef065d7b0b1@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.61.108.145, dhcp-10-61-108-145.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/jHm7qJYtiC3OldTuXQwpu5TeR2A>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Time to reboot RFC1984 and RFC2804?
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: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 10:14:26 -0000

Hi Brian,

> On 14 Oct 2020, at 21:58, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> When we try to go wider than that, we fail. I am not very sympathetic to "a true multi-stakeholder consultation process as suggested by the IAB’s RFC 8890". The IETF is not in any way a suitable vehicle for that kind of process, as anyway who remembers WGIG/WSIS is well aware.

The reason in the end that I supported that document was that I believe there are aspects that the IETF could really stand to improve.  In particular, outreach is not something from which we should shy away.  Rather we individually should view it as a responsibility.  To think otherwise leads to ill-considered proposals that either get deployed and later cause problems, or simply don’t get deployed.

Eliot