Re: bettering open source involvement

"Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Fri, 29 July 2016 00:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3669012D8DD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:34:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 Fc7HE9n1ehJp for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.sbone.de (mx1.sbone.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:3ffc::401:25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6608812D18E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sbone.de (mail.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B68325D388E; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:34:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78D87D1F893; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sbone.de
Received: from mail.sbone.de ([IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:587]) by content-filter.sbone.de (content-filter.sbone.de [fde9:577b:c1a9:31::2013:2742]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pQCe7e8-B8Bp; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:34:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.111.64.116] (unknown [IPv6:fde9:577b:c1a9:4410:e4aa:5e48:2e81:aa1d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.sbone.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC4EFD1F87F; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:34:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bettering open source involvement
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:34:32 +0000
Message-ID: <FF078112-B56C-44D2-B523-9152EFED67FF@lists.zabbadoz.net>
In-Reply-To: <e4c113cd-dd59-5e02-39ff-70cf0896bfd9@gmail.com>
References: <CAA93jw71iUPb4vuFK5sMqo_CQEE9HSkchc9988=98FKUsv_1sw@mail.gmail.com> <CABSMSPUoBGgD6ioiCOScUUEnTUnGiNAYPavONyLpbWzNcRhvsg@mail.gmail.com> <42310584-34a6-5efc-59c3-ff7e7ec77624@gmail.com> <61563BA8-6790-43DE-B670-7040F206B9C9@gmail.com> <d56478d7-ae5c-381b-fd52-ee41d9a56358@gmail.com> <e4c113cd-dd59-5e02-39ff-70cf0896bfd9@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6042)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/_wN0RavfyYClJFND22fxe49aXs8>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:34:43 -0000

On 28 Jul 2016, at 21:06, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> And there's our problem, right there. Protocols without APIs are
> pretty much useless these days. IPv6 without a socket API would have
> been an abject failure. Without RFC 2133, RFC 2292 and their 
> successors,
> who knows how the POSIX and Winsock support for IPv6 would have turned
> out?

2367 is a sad story for me personally as people went off and extended it 
everywhere and now we have an incompatible mish-mash in the world.  Just 
saying, maintenance is also important, and an easy and sensible way to 
get updates folded back in.

The longer I think about publishing and obsoleting RFCs the more I want 
an Open Source model for them and put them in version control and just 
update them in place (not major extensions, but ..)—but that’s a 
different discussion.

…
>
>> but there are groups out there
>> implementing IETF protocols and providing the APIs that allow
>> application  developers to use those protocols and services.
>> That is part of the open source landscape, as well.
>
> Sure. But if the protocol design, the API, and at least one 
> implementation
> aren't developed in lock-step, what on earth are we doing?

Writing RFCs which are 60ish pages long, use extra markers for the 
important bits and had no implementation after 5 years.  Can guess which 
one I was talking about?

/bz