Re: [Edm] Please review draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01

Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de> Thu, 15 July 2021 18:25 UTC

Return-Path: <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
X-Original-To: edm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: edm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7E903A00DB for <edm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FAKE_REPLY_C=1.486, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 4wHWX5n-dKqJ for <edm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:25:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw1.uni-kl.de (mailgw1.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:120::220]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D04FF3A00E5 for <edm@iab.org>; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 11:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de [IPv6:2001:638:208:ef34:0:ff:fe00:65]) by mailgw1.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id 16FIOwLe090161 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:24:58 +0200
Received: from sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (ip6-localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4+deb7u1) with ESMTP id 16FIOvA6012022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:24:57 +0200
Received: (from auerswal@localhost) by sushi.unix-ag.uni-kl.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id 16FIOuw6012016; Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:24:56 +0200
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 20:24:56 +0200
From: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Cc: edm@iab.org
Message-ID: <20210715182456.GA11424@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <80F3F8A2-2C3C-4DE8-BD1D-07842F5B2F89@apple.com>
Author: Erik Auerswald <auerswal@unix-ag.uni-kl.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/edm/_CN70xtdohiOzRNZJCfqnjvDXOk>
Subject: Re: [Edm] Please review draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01
X-BeenThere: edm@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Evolvability, Deployability, & Maintainability \(Proposed\) Program" <edm.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/edm>, <mailto:edm-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/edm/>
List-Post: <mailto:edm@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:edm-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/edm>, <mailto:edm-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 18:25:13 -0000

Hi Tommy,

thanks for working on this nice draft.

I have sent a few small typing mistake fixes as a GitHub pull request
(https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-use-it-or-lose-it/pull/50).

Additionally, I think that two text passages could be improved a bit.

1. The last paragraph of section 2.1 seems to suggest that "simplicity"
   is not a good engineering practice.  I think it intends to say that
   stopping at the "minimum viable product" tends to fall short on, in
   this case, extensibility.  Thus I would suggest one of the following
   text changes, or something similar:

 OLD:

   A desire to deploy can result in an engineering practice that values
   simplicity, which could result in deferring implementation of version
   negotiation and extension mechanisms.

 NEW (version 1):

   A desire to deploy can result in a "minimum viable product" engineering
   practice, which could result in deferring implementation of version
   negotiation and extension mechanisms.

 NEW (version 2):

   A desire to deploy can result in an engineering practice that initially
   concentrates on a reduced feature set, which could result in deferring
   implementation of version negotiation and extension mechanisms.


2. In the second to last paragraph of section 3.1, the first sentence
   seems to me to possibly contain a logic mistake:

   "These examples also confirm the case that good design does not
   guarantee success."

   As far as I understand it, the examples from section 3.1 show that
   extension mechanisms can work even if they are not based on good
   design.

   The examples of the preceding section 2, specifically section 2.2.1,
   show that good design of extension mechnisms does not suffice for
   well working extensibility.

   Thus I would suggest a text change similar to the following:

 OLD:

   These examples also confirm the case that good design does not
   guarantee success.

 NEW:

   These examples also show that good design is not required for success.


Thanks,
Erik


On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 04:20:02PM +0200, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Hello EDM,
> 
> We’ve posted a new version of the use-it-or-lose-it draft, which
> has been discussed in several of our past calls.
> 
> The IAB would like to get this document progressed to be published as an
> RFC between IETF 111 and IETF 112. Please take a look at the current
> version, and provide your reviews either here by email, or on the
> GitHub (https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-use-it-or-lose-it/issues
> <https://github.com/intarchboard/draft-use-it-or-lose-it/issues>).
> 
> Best,
> Tommy
> 
> > On Jul 14, 2021, at 6:21 AM, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > A new version of I-D, draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01.txt
> > has been successfully submitted by Cindy Morgan and posted to the
> > IETF repository.
> > 
> > Name:		draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it
> > Revision:	01
> > Title:		Long-term Viability of Protocol Extension Mechanisms
> > Document date:	2021-07-14
> > Group:		iab
> > Pages:		19
> > URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01.txt
> > Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it/
> > Html:           https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01.html
> > Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it
> > Diff:           https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-iab-use-it-or-lose-it-01
> > 
> > Abstract:
> >   The ability to change protocols depends on exercising the extension
> >   and version negotiation mechanisms that support change.  Protocols
> >   that don't use these mechanisms can find it difficult and costly to
> >   deploy changes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The IETF Secretariat
> > 
> >