IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 08 November 2019 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 F213A12004A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:07:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 MmnHmJWmYa-p for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C35A120147 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 17:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2221F3897B; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:04:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A3E913; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:07:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Thought experiment [Re: Quality of Directorate reviews]
In-Reply-To: <8b46db76-574a-bd2c-18af-0546dee0fd3e@network-heretics.com>
References: <CAJU8_nUovmFmgNiYx0ez_1f+GPdU9xGViDYWfowEEomrn0pyDw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1911040841160.27600@bofh.nohats.ca> <CE06CC6D-E37F-4C90-B782-D14B1D715D4B@cable.comcast.com> <38E47448-63B4-4A5D-8A9D-3AB890EBDDDD@akamai.com> <09886edb-4302-b309-9eaa-f016c4487128@gmail.com> <26819.1572990657@localhost> <2668fa45-7667-51a6-7cb6-4b704c7fba5a@isode.com> <2C97D18E-3DA0-4A2D-8179-6D86EB835783@gmail.com> <91686B28-9583-4A8E-AF8A-E66977B1FE13@gmail.com> <012b9437-4440-915c-f1f9-b85e1b0be768@gmail.com> <20191107014849.GC12148@localhost> <57465486-71b1-a87a-fa8c-bad7157f9025@gmail.com> <3caeb4cf-b92b-99fd-77df-7b1aef3e2979@network-heretics.com> <12884.1573157976@localhost> <8b46db76-574a-bd2c-18af-0546dee0fd3e@network-heretics.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:07:10 -0500
Message-ID: <19827.1573175230@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ho788Gb9qzfQQoQzGGlqYC1eXR8>
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 01:07:13 -0000

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
    > On 11/7/19 3:19 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
    >> Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> wrote:
    >> > This is where the biggest disconnect between 2026 and reality is.   If the
    >> > reality is that industry is going to deploy implementations at Proposed
    >> > Standard or sooner (and as far as I can tell, that's been reality for as long
    >> > as there's been an Internet "industry"), it makes sense for IETF to recognize
    >> > that and react accordingly.
    >>
    >> You are saying this as if it's a bug.
    >> It's not!  It's by design.
    >> We deploy at PS in order to find out if there is interoperability.

    > My first impression is that this is indeed a bug, a tremendous disservice to
    > Internet users.   But I remind myself that automatic software update is
    > becoming increasingly common.   So at least for products that are certain to
    > be run on Internet-connected hosts (as opposed to, say, on air-gapped
    > networks), and for which secure update can be provided, there might be
    > cases

An alternative view is that air-gapped systems should only run Internet
Standards.

    > I could imagine that rather than the initial RFC being at PS, it could be
    > (for some cases, probably not all) at something akin to what Draft Standard
    > used to be - interop testing already done by the time the initial RFC is
    > published, with any changes made as a result of the testing incorporated into
    > that RFC.

I think that we kept the wrong two steps!

    >> > If we want there to be a prototype "just for testing" status, it should
    >> > probably be called something other than Proposed - the name has come to mean
    >> > something else in IETF context.   And we should deliberately change one or
    >> > more protocol elements to make the standard incompatible with
    >>
    >> We do "just for testing" regularly at the internet-draft stage.

    > yeah, and it doesn't make sense to go through the whole RFC publication
    > process just to agree on a specification to test to.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email