Re: [dsii] Potential IETF Work Items

Scott Brim <> Mon, 27 August 2012 11:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1F0621F8639 for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P5n65pgSMGpF for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FA421F8625 for <>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E8F0100090; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:02 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0g5hprsEPb24; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from swbi2mbp.local ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5C07210008E; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:56:00 -0400
From: Scott Brim <>
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 <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:, Guangqing Deng <>
Subject: Re: [dsii] Potential IETF Work Items
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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 <>
> 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.


Thanks ... Scott