Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 16 April 2014 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 739411A02CA for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 mJn1oG6TcX0E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75741A02AF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:21:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id z10so11172590pdj.32 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZH4L583OmxNWS36mQ1MNmu89f+KkyXeDmzmanSdfv7Q=; b=XxgjnpGRlqX1cedYiqzW+N1wMc1EVBaUqIzwlVqinZ3RCeXh2Zf62Z0FXbUChD68Z7 wo57LggUMg/FYpN3Z1kordNjwrq5KOozs2DN7K5PVOQXkyEYk/axR4yV8D304ekBAuro i9Cb5EnfHQ7JiTZU0bIfo/pzGM73vBON0TITY7jLrDVmIpNGRRCAqDl/8FNauM2vgk0J UaHyKxWMrX8ck7Kvmq4BFytTIilJc4z1mx3Fddf8/Hm17hN9a8gnrBw3DBTFAq0n9+dY J27e7Np9CgveAyeoPWoW/ncNWVACa0berQUVgIf3Agkjb08rBKj7dOYVrvcp6oFMeemY kVvw==
X-Received: by 10.68.181.165 with SMTP id dx5mr10986555pbc.38.1397679710547; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (198.197.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.197.198]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qv9sm41923498pbc.71.2014.04.16.13.21.48 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <534EE65A.9020602@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:21:46 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <201404142144.s3ELipR8014504@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <C16CB48C-9462-4514-B675-D750D4DC9357@piuha.net> <534DB785.7040609@gmail.com> <EF72D31A-8134-42DB-B750-D5C3831869EE@tzi.org> <534DC46C.60703@gmail.com> <8962F23C-1486-4F52-AD58-BE64CFBC3B4A@thomasclausen.org> <534E8D3B.7080705@mti-systems.com> <33D51F54-A5A6-42F2-90EC-FE09783BB5A2@thomasclausen.org> <534EA296.20900@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <534EA296.20900@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hvP7L0gvv4vIGsmkCOEOKkrFcnQ
Cc: 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: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 20:21:55 -0000

On 17/04/2014 03:32, Melinda Shore wrote:
...
> I'm not sure that the IETF should get more directly
> involved with supporting implementation efforts but I
> do think that we should recognize that work coming
> in that's already been implemented tends to be more
> fully-baked and privilege that in some way.  One worries
> about that encouraging crappy implementation, but I'm
> not sure that crappy implementation is much worse than
> no implementation.

I don't think we should privilege it particularly. We have at
least 3 modes of working, each of which has its value:

1. Preemptive standardisation: problem statement first,
then requirements, then design, then standardise, then sit
back and wait for implementation.

2. Parallel standardisation: there's some design work and
maybe some code, then retro-fit requirements, write the specs
as the code evolves, then standardise and hope that the code is
updated to match the spec.

3. Retroactive standardisation: there's some running code that
got itself deployed; write the v1 spec to be compatible with
the code, call it a standard, then develop v1.1 or v2 and
hope the code is updated.

We've done all three, and all with varying degrees of success.
I could give examples, but that would just start arguments ;-).
It isn't reasonable to expect all standards to fit the same
model. And people who don't have the desire to work in any
of these models may well prefer to quit standards work (but
still contribute code to one of the three models).

    Brian