Re: [dsii] Potential IETF Work Items

[Andrew Maffei <[e-mail]>]

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
  [e-mail]