IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Asdf] on ASDF cycling at internet-draft

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 21 August 2020 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: asdf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: asdf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919BF3A0EE7 for <asdf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 lKjNkffqKrxZ for <asdf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D35153A0E9D for <asdf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 727B038A1F; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:23:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id MFdlnmAUHiZp; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:23:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ED7438A1D; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:23:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5DB1AA; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, asdf@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJqk7nCJ4d8iDrD8XZPNWAKkw1CojxQ9r=ZvFf4bNkfTw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5C210025-34B4-45BC-9A1D-66D9E92B339A@tzi.org> <31064.1596838037@localhost> <C5ADCAAD-A2DE-47EB-87AA-D5D946E606AA@tzi.org> <11386.1597843091@localhost> <CALaySJJqk7nCJ4d8iDrD8XZPNWAKkw1CojxQ9r=ZvFf4bNkfTw@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 13:44:34 -0400
Message-ID: <28674.1598031874@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/asdf/hsZrdbu4Ezkp9boFclCT0z0nZyU>
Subject: Re: [Asdf] on ASDF cycling at internet-draft
X-BeenThere: asdf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A Semantic Description Format \(SDF\) for Things and their Interactions and Data" <asdf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/asdf>, <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/asdf/>
List-Post: <mailto:asdf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asdf>, <mailto:asdf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 17:44:39 -0000

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
    > Michael, have a chat with Mark Nottingham: this is what httpbis did and
    > quic is doing, and it worked very effectively for them.

Yes, I know that they did this.
I believe it works because the parties involved are
  a) funded to implement Internet-Drafts (not just discuss)
  b) actively deploy/test, with the understanding that it may break
  c) includes implementers that have both significant client and server properties

My impression is that this mostly applies to ASDF as well, although (c) is irrelevant.

    > There are benefits to having a version in a PS RFC, then making the
    > next version a new PS RFC that Obsoletes the first, and so on.

This is was how RFC1310/RFC1602/RFC2026/etc. intended, and it seems that it
has again gotten unstuck, pushing WGs like httpbis and quic AND ASDF to take
this approach.   It seems that every 15 years, the process becomes ossified.

As Carsten says, it's not our WG's purpose to try to fix the IESG, I guess we
just have to work around things.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email