Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24
"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 22:26 UTC
Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DA812D7A2; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.147
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.147 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247] 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 IS4_z1fSLMyl; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A3012D19F; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u7HMQ1tl083073 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:26:02 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.4]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@folly.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:26:01 -0500
Message-ID: <B9A67A12-B74D-47E6-B67A-6AEFE7BB1D74@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <c2c91da2-41c9-0244-4214-cee853ef66d5@folly.org.uk>
References: <pe04eo7uwhsm1a1pyh3i0c7e.1471038202004@email.android.com> <B745A028-9B9B-4FA0-BA7B-8027A8BD349B@nostrum.com> <c2c91da2-41c9-0244-4214-cee853ef66d5@folly.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/nYIuAYkueQQg5R8YXKre8j8XEXU>
Cc: General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-insipid-session-id.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ietf-insipid-session-id-24
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:26:07 -0000
On 17 Aug 2016, at 12:04, Elwyn Davies wrote: > Hi, Ben. > > Having read Barry's proposed update for RFC 3967, I would be happy > for that to become the status quo. However, I would distinguish > between truly foundational documents that are produced in tandem with > the protocol standards or subsequently (as mentioned in Barry's draft) > and what one might call WG process documents such as requirements > documents and problem statements. I was going to use the word > 'ephemera' to describe these latter types, but that is doing them a > disservice: Such documents, along with mailing list archives, can > provide insight into the thought processes that went into the > generation of the WG output for future reference. Both the software > industry and the standards industry is incredibly bad at remembering > how decisions were reached - the concept of a 'design diary' never > seems to have taken hold - with the result that we spend an awful lot > of time reopening topics that were shown to be blind alleys and such > like especially after the original participants have moved on. > > That being said, I think that the 'design diary' category of documents > probably ought to be archived elsewhere than the RFC series; > additionally, it is unclear whether applying the RFC review processes > and resources to an essentially random subset of WG's design thoughts > is appropriate (that is a random set of WGs rather than a random set > of thoughts from any one WG - I hope :-) ). As mentioned below, it is > not generally known in advance that parts of such documents might end > up being key references in later standards which can affect both the > way in which the documents are written (applicable in this case to > some extent) and the rigour of review (the WG seems to have done a > good job in this case). > > Up until last month, I think that the foundational documents extension > would have covered the situation - RFC 6707 broke the mould, and I do > not consider that foundational covers it. Without prejudice to your points (many of which I agree with), can I safely assume that the discussion above this point is more around Barry's draft, that we don't need to hold draft-ietf-insipid-session-id hostage to the completion of that discussion? > > Back to the current document: I have reread s3 of RFC 7206 and there > are some points that need to be sorted out: > > - The term 'end-to-end' is given a slightly specialized meaning in RFC > 7206. This is presumably carried through to the draft under review, > but the need to refer to the end-to-end definition is not mentioned in > the draft. > > - The use of 'session' as a shorthand for the specific meaning of > 'communication session' defined in RFC 7206 ought to be emphasized > within the draft since the shorthand in RFC 7206 is technically > limited to the RFC (ok, this is somewhat nitpicking but easy to > misinterpret.) I agree with both of the above points. Authors? > > - The last para of s3.1 of RFC 7206 states: > >> This definition, along with the constraints imposed by the >> requirements in this document,.... > There is no explicit statement that this standard meets all the > requirements, so this is difficult to verify and might be > problematical in future. I think that text, taken in context, is about the ability to use the session-id across protocols, not the definition of session-id in general. That is, even if the protocol fails to meet some of the requirements, the definition does not change. > > Overall, I am of the opinion that in this sort of situation, I'd do a > copy and paste exercise and tweak the text just a little to fit the > context more accurately. Noted, and I hope to discuss that point with the rest of the IESG, either via mail or on the telechat. (I note, however, that there were multiple comments suggesting a different draft on tomorrow's telechat should not have copied definitions forward. Now, that was a requirements draft referencing terms from other requirements/architecture/problem statement drafts, so the situation may be a bit different. > > Cheers, > > Elwyn > > On 15/08/2016 21:48, Ben Campbell wrote: >> Hi Elwyn: >> >> Responsible AD Hat on: >> >> I'm going to enter a DISCUSS position, to make sure this point gets >> discussion among the IESG before this progresses. The whole point of >> the repeated last call was to get feedback on the downref, and this >> certainly counts :-) >> >> >> All hats off: >> >> As an individual, I still disagree. Specifics inline: >> >> On 12 Aug 2016, at 18:14, Elwyn Davies wrote: >> >>> Hi, Ben. >>> AFAICS there is only one really similar case (downref to RFC 6707) >>> which was approved just last month (based on a problem statement). >> >> I'm pretty sure there are more than that; the idea that terminology >> references may need to be normative has come up repeatedly during >> IESG reviews over the past year or so. >> >>> My concern here is that the other framework and requirements >>> documents are documents that continue to have a relevance (such as >>> telling a network operator what is necessary to allow deployment of >>> some IETF-defined technology) rather than being something that >>> defines what a WG is intending to work on (RFC 6707 and RFC 7206 are >>> respectively a problem statement and a protocol requirements >>> statement). As we know, there has been some considerable discussion >>> of whether we should really be publishing these documents as RFCs >>> given that they are snapshots of a discussion position at a point in >>> time and are only really of academic interest once the working group >>> has done its work. >> >> I agree that we should cut down on publication of "requirements", >> "use case", etc documents that do not have long term archival value. >> But I don't think there should be as hard of a line as you describe. >> In particular, sometimes they are valuable for nailing down >> especially hard-won consensus about requirements. I think that is >> true for RFC 7206. >> >> But in any case, I think this is a red herring. RFC 7206 has been >> published. This discussion isn't going to change that. >> >>> Allowing them to be used as normative references further embeds >>> them into the system. >> >> I don't see why. Not every action creates a precedent. I do not >> propose that we add RFC to the downref registry. >> >>> I would also caution that terminology and such like as defined in >>> (protocol) requirements and problem statements are generally written >>> and approved prior to the standards documents in which the are >>> referenced. Further, I am not totally convinced that the same degree >>> of rigour is applied to the review of this type of document. Thus >>> it is vitally important to ensure that the definitions are still >>> correct, complete and reflect what is needed for the standard(s): >>> The protocols don't always exactly match the requirements - and >>> there may have been some subtle bending of the meaning of terms over >>> time! >>> If the downref is to be accepted, then I (and other reviewers) need >>> to go back and have a harder read of the definitions, unless they >>> think they already did. >> >> I believe the working group intent was that the definitions stated in >> RFC 7206 are the ones used in the protocol. >> >>> One consequential question: Is it time for either an update or >>> some commentary on RFC 3967 as there seems to be a relaxation of the >>> statements in Section 2? >> >> RFC 3967 section 2 makes no attempt to be exhaustive. It basically >> says "there are some reasons to make exceptions. Here are some >> examples." >> >> (There actually is an ongoing discussion about relaxing bits of RFC >> 3967. See draft-leiba-3967upd-downref-00, especially the third >> paragraph of section 1.) >>> >>> However >>> My view is just that... if the authors, WG, you as AD and the IESG >>> are happy with the downref and I am in a minority of one (or a very >>> small number) of the IETF, then there is rough concensus and I'll be >>> fine with the outcome. It is only a gen-art revew... >> >> It's a gen-art review on an IETF last call done _specifically_ for >> the downref, so I think the outcome is relevant :-) >> >>> Cheers,Elwyn >>> PSI note that it wouldn't be too late to undo the relaxation.. the >>> draft referencing RFC 6707 is still with the RFC Editor ;-) >>> /E >> >> [...] >> >> Thanks! >> >> Ben. > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Jari Arkko
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei)
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Ben Campbell
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Ben Campbell
- [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draft-ie… Elwyn Davies
- Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art LC2/Telechat review of draf… Paul Giralt