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

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:07:55AM +0900, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> This was probably true when I joined the IESG in 2013, which seems like
> just yesterday in IETF timelines, but after the MPLS-in-UDP kerfluffle, the
> TSV ADs and RTG ADs agreed that for specifications that might not behave
> well on the open Internet, what we would ask was that these proposals
> include a description of what safety mechanisms needed to be in place if
> the protocol being described WAS running over the open Internet.
> 
> We put together a design team to figure out what to do, and that eventually
> led to Transport Circuit Breakers, as in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8084,
> also BCP 208, which built on https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7510#section-5,
> an early example of the kind of "congestion considerations" I'm talking
> about, and produced by that design team.
> 
> I agree that this is hard, but it is possible to do better than best effort.

If i may stay to me naming best effort (BE) Internet traffic as horses then i
agree that this was very good work to ensure horses will not be harmed
on 2030 internet highways. Alas, i can not really see what else IETF is doing 
for a 2030 internet higway to support anything more than horses.

[rant]
I really wished the IETF would wake up to the need to not only bother about
horses and work more on better than BE modes of transport for those future networks.
CC work is still regurgitating the "all flows are equal" mantra and "we don't
define exactly what equal means", and we know forever this is not sufficient.
DetNet is already a decade behind IEEE TSN without any ability to build products,
IP doesn't even have all the pieces to support it (only MPLS), switched ethernets 
networks widely replacing IP networks in growth markets such as metropolitan
networks, any form of traffic differentiation is immediately faced with more
"net neutrality" misinterpretation in the IETF than encouragement to actually
work on it, and the expectation of the IETF for new work to adopt itself
to the historic structure of the IETF, its magically closed IAB, fine
grained subdivision of work across WGs and the like is just mindboggingly
unhelpful to strategic future work.
[/rant]

Cheers
    Toerless

> Best,
> 
> Spencer
> 
> 
> > To me, this is really like asking new transportation standards to explain
> > how
> > they are compatible with horse manure because horses are still the
> > golden standard for transportation.  So we continuously reinforce this
> > historic
> > lowest common denominator and do not encourage really systematically
> > the value proposition of better quality/resilience network infrastructures.
> >
> > Toerless
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Architecture-discuss mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss


-- 
---
[e-mail]