Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 17 April 2014 14:20 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24DD81A00A3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.873
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 LQS-sfiH8CeX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:20:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2BB11A0088 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19017; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397744445; x=1398954045; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=UksW3Ep7w7CKd7sNszwVOjXuwc+knICVjxYSKgKqmPk=; b=RO5GC0YZA+YjCRoMhZ/EgGlufbDveQBoLS/TWpwfP8URP7Ih7eO+oP75 XPO0c0O0O4uSYAvksKi+lFoC05zYbfl7my2cam6mjrECGfixOBrKPP8m4 1zmaXFmP2IJ8Vh5noZSACjoSLHVxxRC+BQXIF6Y9vR9QJ9D788A10ZNZJ k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AggFAPPhT1OrRDoI/2dsb2JhbABZgwbEcIElFnSCJQEBAQMBbgsFCQILGAkeBw8CCisRBgEMAQUCAQEVAodZB8p2FwSJOYRNWAeEOAEDi3SMeoZYi3WDMzuBLA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.97,879,1389744000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="36621044"
Received: from mtv-core-3.cisco.com ([171.68.58.8]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2014 14:20:43 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by mtv-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3HEKePA009229; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:20:41 GMT
Message-ID: <534FE338.90004@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:20:40 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Pietro Romano <spromano@unina.it>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <19983.1397493280@sandelman.ca> <8B56205B-8143-4B5B-B2FD-22FABE95ED16@unina.it>
In-Reply-To: <8B56205B-8143-4B5B-B2FD-22FABE95ED16@unina.it>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060702040703040602070504"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-aVaZ2n90RJpaF1LMyLatLR5jhc
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org list" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 14:20:54 -0000

On 14/04/2014 19:01, Simon Pietro Romano wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I read the post from Vidya and I have to say I totally agree with her. 
> As to running code, in particular, my impression is that if you are 
> used to implement prototypes of ongoing standards and you're neither a 
> big company nor a member of the IETF elite of gurus, the best you can 
> buck for is an informational "call flows" RFC. Standards Track stuff 
> is left to those who (seem to) do the high-level specification work. 
> This happens because people seem to rush for editing documents as soon 
> as a new WG is chartered, but then they progressively reduce efforts 
> when such a WG starts to lose momentum and is not latest fashion any 
> longer.
Or when they made to the famous authors list of the WG document, which 
is considered at THE major achievement.
I've seen that problem a few times and it's very annoying.
I would be in favor to re-evaluate who really contributed to the 
document full life cycle when the document leaves the WG.

Regards, B.

> Finally, coming to interoperability, it is hard to work on it if your 
> implementation is the only one available. In the long run, I do 
> acknowledge the fact that you get tired of doing all that hard work 
> and investing so many cycles in a highly underestimated engineering 
> activity.
>
> My two cents,
>
> Simon
>
>
> On 14/apr/2014, at 18:34, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
>>
>> George, Wes <wesley.george@twcable.com 
>> <mailto:wesley.george@twcable.com>> wrote:
>>> - We don’t have nearly enough focus on running code as the thing 
>>> that helps to
>>> ensure that we’re using our limited cycles on getting the right 
>>> things out
>>> expediently, and either getting the design right the first time, or 
>>> failing
>>> quickly and iterating to improve
>>
>>> The solution here may be that we need to be much more aggressive at 
>>> expecting
>>> any standards track documents to have running code much earlier in the
>>> process.
>>
>> For instance, had DMARC proponents and/or Yahoo, spent some time 
>> making sure
>> that there was some running code for mailing list use, life would be 
>> better.
>>
>> I'm not entirely clear how it was that we produced/funded (more) 
>> running code in the
>> 1990s.  Maybe this is a false idea; it could be that there was less 
>> code then
>> than there is now.   I will posit several factors:
>>  1) there was less working occuring, and perhaps over a longer time 
>> period
>>     (where time is subject to perception as well as reality), such that
>>     code became mature sooner in the specification process, and/or there
>>     were simply more volunteers willing to produce it.
>>
>>  2) many companies were much smaller, and it was easier to get line 
>> managers
>>     to see why they wanted to be directly involved, even lead, efforts.
>>
>>  3) it wasn't so much the dotcom boom which made money available via VCs,
>>     but rather that the (ultimately unstainable) revenue doubling, 
>> quarter
>>     over quarter which made resources available for prototypes.
>>
>>  4) there were some clear institutions (MIT, CMU, Berkeley, LLBL, UW) 
>> where
>>     some good reference implementations were developed by students, 
>> faculty,
>>     staff.  And don't forget WIDE and USAGI!!!
>>
>> When I founded Xelerance, it was with the idea that multiple large
>> organizations were shipping IPsec code on Linux, and would rather pay a
>> company a maintenance fee than attempt to manage the process internally.
>> We got some work funded, but we never got enough funding to get ahead of
>> the standardization process and write code will an ID was still young.
>> Overall, that effort failed.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca 
>> <mailto:mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>>, Sandelman Software Works
>> -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>>
>>
>>
>
>   _\\|//_
>       ( O-O )
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o00~~(_)~~00o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Simon Pietro Romano
> Universita' di Napoli Federico II
>      Computer Engineering Department
>       Phone: +39 081 7683823 -- Fax: +39 081 7683816
>  e-mail: spromano@unina.it <mailto:spromano@unina.it>
>
> <<Molti mi dicono che lo scoraggiamento è l'alibi degli
>  idioti. Ci rifletto un istante; e mi scoraggio>>. Magritte.
>                      oooO
>   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~( )~~~ Oooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>            \ (            (   )
>                             \_)          ) /
>                              (_/
>
>
>
>
>
>