Re: [dsii] Potential IETF Work Items

Andrew Maffei <amaffei@whoi.edu> Tue, 14 August 2012 16:35 UTC

Return-Path: <amaffei@whoi.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 06A2F21F8534 for <dsii@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NdNbERM6gZWM for <dsii@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postal1.whoi.edu (postal1-e0.whoi.edu [128.128.76.87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544C621F850B for <dsii@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by postal1.whoi.edu (Postfix, from userid 117) id A418F2C8277; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:35:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from dyn-128-128-91-195.whoi.edu (dyn-128-128-91-195.whoi.edu [128.128.91.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postal1.whoi.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2C9E62C8251; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:35:51 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Andrew Maffei <amaffei@whoi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <502A753F.4010001@nomountain.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:35:52 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F3EA305-7E9A-4822-BE8C-C937FB2AB3B5@whoi.edu>
References: <E1AB8352-7B89-4D5A-9B36-4872DF105392@vigilsec.com> <7F45CB6F-2FE2-4A25-8A18-C94674489E39@vigilsec.com> <502A753F.4010001@nomountain.net>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
X-Virus-Status: No
Cc: dsii@ietf.org
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:35:54 -0000

On Aug 14, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:

> On 8/14/12 6:16 AM, Russ Housley wrote:
>> At the DSII BOF in Vancouver, Andy Maffei gave a list of potential
>> work items.  Is there interest in pursuing any of them in the IETF?
> 
> I think that given our history with other standards bodies trying to
> standardize IP technologies and our reaction to those, it might not be
> a terrible idea to tread a little lightly here, and make sure that
> the IETF wouldn't be stepping on anybody else's toes.
> 
> I'm generally not a fan of bringing this work to the IETF, but if
> there really is support for it I think that we do have the expertise
> within the organization for working on identifiers and we definitely
> do not have the expertise for working on what's basically library
> metadata.  I also think that we shouldn't be in the business of
> attempting to limit PIDs, because, basically, we can't.
> 
> I'm unconvinced that much thought has been given to what sort of
> expertise the IETF can bring to bear on any of these questions.
> 
> Melinda

Thanks Melinda,

I think the two initiatives are getting at a "getting to know you" stage.
I agree that more thought is required and treading lightly is a sound 
approach. My list was intended as brain-storming fodder rather than
a well-thought out proposal for moving forward.

My hope is that there is some way that the lessons-learned over the decades
by the IETF about interoperability approaches would be transferrable
to the dsii interests -- whether around indentifers or certain types of
metadata.

I found that the metadata I-D for the CDNI WG, for example,
had some overlap in some types of dsii metadata needs. I agree that
IETF is less appropriate for more "Library-type" metadata but
the CDNI metadata was not that.

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.

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).

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.

--Andrew Maffei
  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
  amaffei@whoi.edu