Re: [art] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-users, and a generalization
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 23 July 2019 15:31 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3EC120332; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nostrum.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 W2ZX7suFnpSq; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC35A1203C2; Tue, 23 Jul 2019 08:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.21.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x6NFUxQW089167 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Jul 2019 10:31:01 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1563895862; bh=Auuk9/w0YD/a4CFy0LpKf2CIn+tJKDBdNiNUSrorW4o=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=UldvqHbV/meVGZQOFwlNsqzjopRFneWBziE0QP1MMSrjgskA6AX2kADpIVgvKsuqw W/giERWbwWYbJkfLdEE1XPyebmw3IwJCcOVzQyrUNpn9vVoOhv9UT1cV9vvDURb2HX m6CmFBX8Dstc6TJMvisArIOP/o3qswx9THN9Zm5o=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.21.210] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, art@ietf.org
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
References: <791b33b8-4696-f69c-aca3-8838b2caafd8@sectigo.com> <CAChr6SyYB9mHAx+AQSTVQvb2g5FvAD03KQ_Ta7=RH+6Pt8dKrw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sza8u8oyCsDUDJzNbRFqMjeoR5zLz5YmoUUMTrXKUgK6w@mail.gmail.c om> <77F8C1C2AAB5AE251285436F@[172.20.2.211]>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <30deb3a8-c24f-1f38-2701-aa1d68b6adba@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 11:30:59 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <77F8C1C2AAB5AE251285436F@[172.20.2.211]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------39D2DF7535A0E067A5857273"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/HI5sX42n6-qeQgsD4Uv5cdX4G28>
Subject: Re: [art] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-users, and a generalization
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:31:13 -0000
John -- It's going to take a while for me to formulate my thoughts around what you say below. To make sure I understand the class of constraints you're concerned about below, can you clarify whether you think they apply to: * Documents like BCP 200, RFC 2804, and BCP 188? * Documents like BCP 9 and BCP 92? * Documents like BCP 25, BCP 54, and BCP 83? You might see an unstated agenda in the categories of documents I list above, so I'll state it explicitly: in the general case, one person's important protections against a tragedy of the commons is another person's annoying impediment to be ignored and defeated. I get that not all of the above read on protocol design; but they do share the common feature that they've gone through the IETF consensus process (at least to the degree that such a process existed at the time of their respective publications). If we're going to carefully parse out the meanings of some of them as the will of the community while treating others as light guidelines to be ignored when they become cumbersome, we're going to need to agree on a pretty bright line that divides those categories. /a On 7/23/19 08:37, John C Klensin wrote: > (copying architecture-discuss because the comment I'm about to > make is an architectural issue and because > draft-nottingham-for-the-users is under discussion there.) > > > A late colleague, much loved by some of us, used to claim (much > more elegantly than I can manage) that one of the reasons the > ARPANET and then the Internet protocols had succeeded and much > of what was seen as competitive alternatives had not, was that > our efforts focused on pragmatic, working protocols and > implementations. > > The other folks had developed a culture of formalisms, models, > and stated design principles. They then tried to develop > protocols that fit into the boxes and categories of those > formalisms, models, and design principles. When they > discovered that something didn't fit, they needed to either > invent kludges or other ways of getting square pegs into round > holes, go back and revise models and guidance before moving > forward, or consider and make exceptions (which often required > first figuring out how to make an exception and developing > procedures for that). > > One difficulty is that the above can waste a lot of time. > Another is that it can distort protocol design, if only because > forcing square pegs into round holes tends to be hard on both > the pegs and the holes. > > In many or most fields of application, the nature of engineering > involves seeing and understanding a range of tradeoffs and then > doing design work that reflects a carefully-chosen balance among > them. Give design elegance absolute priority over structural > issues and buildings and bridges fall down. IMO, we need to > think, and keep thinking, about systems and tradeoffs. That, in > turn, means that statements like these that can be interpreted > in absolute terms, even if we mostly agree with them, should be > packaged as general guidelines and not BCPs to which everything > done in the future is required to either conform or to try to > figure out how to appeal to a higher authority. > > I'm not at all convinced that the proposal that was summarized > an ARTAREA yesterday and that is seen as requiring an exception > to BCP 190 is a good idea. But I think our time would be better > spent, and the Internet more efficiently made better, discussing > the strengths, weaknesses, and alternatives to that idea rather > than debating the reach and appropriateness of BCP 190 under > various circumstances. Long term and more generally, I think > that suggests seeing BCP 190 not as a particular set of > principles and rules but as an example of something we don't > want to do to ourselves again as a BCP (or as something that > gets enough of an IAB stamp of approval that people will later > argue MUST (or SHOULD) be conformed to. Again, restated as > general guidance with the assumption that there will be > exceptions and cases not considered, I don't have much of a > problem. If that shoe fits draft-nottingham-for-the-users, > so be it. > > john > > p.s. I don't mean to pick on Mark here. While these two > documents coming up at the same time was handy, I think the > problem is general and that there are far worse examples > (examples of which he is not an author) than either of them. > > _______________________________________________ > art mailing list > art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
- [art] Against BCP 190 Rob Stradling
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 S Moonesamy
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 S Moonesamy
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Henry S. Thompson
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 masinter
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Leif Johansson
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Rob Sayre
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Rob Sayre
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 S Moonesamy
- [art] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-users, an… John C Klensin
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Melinda Shore
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Leif Johansson
- Re: [art] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-users… Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Melinda Shore
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Leif Johansson
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Leif Johansson
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Victor Vasiliev
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Leif Johansson
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Adam Roach
- Re: [art] Against BCP 190 Tony Finch
- Re: [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-the-… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-… Guntur Wiseno Putra
- Re: [art] [arch-d] BCP 190, draft-nottingham-for-… Guntur Wiseno Putra