Re: [dsii] Potential IETF Work Items

Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu> Mon, 27 August 2012 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <swb@internet2.edu>
X-Original-To: dsii@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dsii@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F0621F8639 for <dsii@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P5n65pgSMGpF for <dsii@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu (int-proxy01.merit.edu [207.75.116.230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FA421F8625 for <dsii@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8F0100090; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at int-proxy01.merit.edu
Received: from int-proxy01.merit.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (int-proxy01.merit.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0g5hprsEPb24; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from swbi2mbp.local (cpe-74-79-27-61.twcny.res.rr.com [74.79.27.61]) by int-proxy01.merit.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C07210008E; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <503B6050.2010407@internet2.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:00 -0400
From: Scott Brim <swb@internet2.edu>
Organization: Internet2
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Beth Plale <plale@cs.indiana.edu>
References: <E1AB8352-7B89-4D5A-9B36-4872DF105392@vigilsec.com> <7F45CB6F-2FE2-4A25-8A18-C94674489E39@vigilsec.com> <CAPv4CP-SOmFAKqdm+3Xa9oBwNxd_f4dGyAQu7aesaEbc_quLgQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMBpwaxHUMXegcQ6j1pPqgmb4k=130BaoDVp6HQ_Kh1Syw@mail.gmail.com> <502BC103.4040107@nomountain.net> <CA+9kkMCDF7LeeJw+G9-DHhxTsz3wC_8SWbPRjyzSDgaTzyA77g@mail.gmail.com> <503290C2.7060608@nomountain.net> <6D125452-6D45-473A-A1B0-5DF461B80D3D@whoi.edu> <E42F4F32-3E9E-4F06-85CC-1C7FEBE73E01@cs.indiana.edu> <CAL4OH3QEbMJtEEJRnD=8X=L3bm+C5Xr0CQt78nGYTvy-eoTw_g@mail.gmail.com> <3EB30CBE-60E1-4229-9821-9DFF9A5F14C2@cs.indiana.edu>
In-Reply-To: <3EB30CBE-60E1-4229-9821-9DFF9A5F14C2@cs.indiana.edu>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dsii@ietf.org, Guangqing Deng <dgq2011@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dsii] Potential IETF Work Items
X-BeenThere: dsii@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dsii.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dsii>, <mailto:dsii-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dsii>
List-Post: <mailto:dsii@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dsii-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dsii>, <mailto:dsii-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:56:04 -0000

Hi Beth.

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Beth Plale <plale@cs.indiana.edu>;
wrote:
> This is an important conversation.  The issues with data
> identification are surfacing in science because science data is at
> multiple levels of granularity (e.g., national, state, metro area,
> street) and giving proper credit to data creators is of burgeoning
> important in the sciences.   Commercial video can have issues of
> granularity but once copyright issues are resolved, ownership is
> clear.   The issue of ownership/attribution is driving the urgency
> to come up with solutions to the data set identifier problem.
>
> I see interoperability across ID schemes as something that IETF can
> help us think about and propose a solution to.  We're not going to
> accomplish much by trying to mandate a single ID scheme, not with
> several already in existence and with good adoption.  Ted and Andrew
> identified this problem as well.   I wished we'd had more time to
> discuss interoperability at the BOF.
>
> I like the connections Andrew made to work going on in other IETF
> groups.  That shows hope that there's existing expertise from which
> we can draw.

It shows that it is fairly straightforward to build a mechanism for
higher layer communications ... but the key issue will be exactly what
to carry.  That's something the IETF can't solve.  Given the large
number of ID schemes, finding a set of useful common semantics is,
well, daunting.  Once you have that, a framework for communication
using those semantics will be relatively easy.

> I see this topic as cloud-agnostic.  Clouds are heavily researched
> and used in academia; identifiers would describe data sets wherever
> they "live", and clouds are likely to be or already heavily used for
> replication (caching).

Yes, the interoperability issues exist regardless of where or how the
identities are being used -- cloud or not.

> Finally, Andrew's suggested 3 options for engagement (copied below)
> are very good.
>
> On Aug 14, 2012, at 12:35 PM, Andrew Maffei wrote:
>
> Three options for engagement seem worthwhile considering:
>
> 1. More dsii-interested folks currently outside IETF could start
> participating in WGs w cross-cutting interests, once they are
> identified.

Existing WGs' work might be useful to DSII but I don't think you're
going to be able to inject DSII concerns into them.  They are focused
on specific problems, not on interoperability of identifiers per se.

> 2. More IETF'ers could be engaged to participate in current dsii
> initiatives outside the IETF and be offered a platform from which
> an IETF perspective can be heard. ("Big Data" seems to be getting
> big these days for better or worse).

This would be good if people have the time.  What other groups do you
think are effectively working on the DSII problem?

> 3. A dsii working-group might someday be formed within IETF.
>
> I think that the first 2 options are pre-requisites for the 3rd so
> that we can gain familiarity with each others use-cases and cultures
> and thus lower the risk of a "bad start". As I have gotten older I
> have learned how important "good starts" are to initiatives.

OK.

Thanks ... Scott