Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> Sun, 29 December 2019 17:07 UTC

Return-Path: <eckert@i4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
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 BD0FF12007C for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:07:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 JgJsKFaMWgqA for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [IPv6:2001:638:a000:4134::ffff:40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A15412001A for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:07:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.34.52]) by faui40.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D207548045; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:07:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: by faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Postfix, from userid 10463) id 944FF440059; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:07:40 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:07:40 +0100
From: Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>
To: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca>
Cc: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
Message-ID: <20191229170740.GI8801@faui48f.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <1127343564.5806.1577112317584@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <ebcca2be-6839-8f43-d74f-0e863e32cd2d@cs.tcd.ie> <2068147434.6516.1577178675917@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20191227130815.120fc690@elandnews.com> <LO2P265MB0573E1B462A3804525BB2646C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <2CA4CBDC-CAB0-4E02-BC4C-40DF67FB64BC@tony.li> <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <FDB1D43E-7741-49B8-BA3D-0B090E302E4B@viagenie.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <FDB1D43E-7741-49B8-BA3D-0B090E302E4B@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/mOvF6tmn4NlL37lcW5FmXth7GrY>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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, 29 Dec 2019 17:07:51 -0000

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 02:46:18PM -0500, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> IMHO, we are diverging pretty off the initial proposed charter. Well I can
> understand your point of view, I think the policy side, as you describe,
> should be outside the scope of the charter.

+1 

> Can we come back to technical content?

Indeed. 

When reading all the threads about policy i was wondering what this could
mean technically to IETF/IAB work, and the best i could come up with
was the part of our standards that allow to express policies. BGP
filtering, ACLs, split horizon DNS, DiffServ, etc. pp.

I do wonder though what specifically the technologies for IAB/IETF
could be to express policies regarding resilience, and i think it
would be interesting to outline/document those. Especially when its
more than any of aforementioned policies to select a single path
or control what traffic policies should be applied to it.

Toerless

> Marc.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Andrew
> 
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de