IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: We should have a Wheel/2 Research Group

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Mon, 08 March 2021 04:42 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 6ADFA3A247C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 20:42:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 vE3pEUO7ZWd4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 20:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f176.google.com (mail-yb1-f176.google.com [209.85.219.176]) (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 151513A247B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 Mar 2021 20:42:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f176.google.com with SMTP id u3so8854811ybk.6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 20:42:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4zgfX3N5dxa7/boPrnPVKqWAzMgErtQVsXqUGgLRuNw=; b=m9yl+iIyKuYVcJAY7JtpIIA24SHKiAW4f9BCDrwCLp0DmP5Iz0C834Ca+YMG/MD0uE sGn6ZXpiq8xhWhDuRq2REyaXxDNpstHD6Em2q0pvOGz2PhP5J5PwJxz2irsq6VqcB7M3 ZNpWzBYOWF/P143TNO8cuQGWhOS5FpS+6+p+6PUqz62peMm5gGcXjHDM+ueTeu7W0Rg/ Y1DSM4yOyMwfwXQ0Mi55PTpVhMNe4JAuzdXyL1Qw8TUb0jnM1siBV0GsOAdzeKN2NKjG wqim8JGNSW5x1XgV6pCaWALW7D0CEIjjm12Z/K7OnF8zKjlUnFKs/51khRoe34OKqM9C iAeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530s5L5tzxTnjIBaRE4b5gmiJp2AswCzmaekv51d9//jKe9sOQKW 8fdlaoSRxUkRWpRGQhLW2WkEYhZ8YZIpR3JsUcg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw+YMvoBXv3vktmzRl5oKZfnPGggbNqBy0h849n+3PYmyf6VyHKCxvxt5+SffJJLw4Zo5sAwrpZzMDB9y4i/fY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa6d:: with SMTP id s100mr33417886ybi.523.1615178568320; Sun, 07 Mar 2021 20:42:48 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMm+Lwhj9ShK69Ay=EUy6kX67opuoYzMYu_Whp1qWZHAX9Hqxg@mail.gmail.com> <1109773e-dde5-14a3-6277-bc36c9d8262c@network-heretics.com> <20210307224241.GC30153@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <20210307224241.GC30153@localhost>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2021 23:42:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwhwvh-ZC_+UssxdbC=Okq7MGwJiQOfeyW+0fPDoJx5BMg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: We should have a Wheel/2 Research Group
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d04a5e05bcff1030"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/h-VBlA5G1B463aGonVFwj737-Ao>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 04:42:50 -0000

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 5:43 PM Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 06, 2021 at 08:57:45PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > On 3/6/21 6:52 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> > > One of the most frequent comments on new work proposals is 'no need to
> > > re-invent the wheel'.
>
> In the ASN.1 thread my point was that we should know well what came
> before before we replace it.
>

Yes, I was making a completely serious proposal.

Surveying the defects in the existing state of affairs is an important part
of the process.

Sometimes the old wheel has nothing worth saving other than the idea of
> it, and when the pain of using that old wheel gets bad enough, we must
> re-invent it.


If re-inventing stuff was always a bad idea, we would still be using the
telephone network.


> Doing it ahead of time is risky and has opportunity costs
> such that the new wheel needs to be that much better than the old to be
> worth pursuing early -- it's an economic analysis problem.
>

Or another possibility is that new approach is fused with the legacy.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email