Re: IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Hannes,
At 03:35 23-03-2011, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>.... because many people leave early and so they wouldn't see the plenary :-)

No, it is because it would be the 1st of April. :-)

>We actually try our best...

I understand that.

>In Section 2:
>
>"This attitude is not particularly surprising given that many
>standardization participants in the real-time communication area look
>back to a regime that exactly follows a highly standardised eco-
>system, namely the telecommunication business."
>
>Does the IAB have an opinion about adopting such a model?
>
>
>You need to quote the entire paragraph:

Or I could address a very specific question to the IAB. :-)

>Two answers:
>
>1) Architecture

[snip]

>If we now look at the architecture that is being brought forward in 
>the RTCWeb debate then you will notice that many of the protocol 
>building blocks that have been standardized are not really 
>necessary. They may be used but it is more likely that they will not.

I noticed the "Proprietary over HTTP/Websockets" in 
draft-rosenberg-rtcweb-framework-00.

>What do we as draft authors want? In Section 4 of 
>draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00 I collected a few questions 
>I thought would be useful to ask.

My opinion is that the questions favor a particular approach.

>It is not about saying what other people in the IETF must do but 
>rather to initiate a thought process.

Ok.

>If you design a new protocol today you have a couple of design 
>choices to make. "Should my protocol run on top of HTTP/HTTPS?" may 
>be one of the questions you run into.

I am not keen about the "one port to serve them all".  If we look at 
design choices in other areas, such as the equivalent of MX records 
for DNS (draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection), we might wonder 
whether there is even an architecture to work from.

>If you come to the conclusion that this Web stuff is not relevant to 
>your effort then that's perfectly fine. You have thought about it 
>and you have reasons why your own approach is more appropriate.

My approach would be overruled by business constraints.  We have 
reached the point where "this is going to happen whether you like it or not".

>2) IAB's opinion
>
>At the moment the IAB does not have a consensus on this topic. The 
>document you are referencing, 
>draft-tschofenig-post-standardization-00, is an individual 
>submission (as the filename indicates).
>We had discussions about these Web architectural topics in the IAB 
>but since this document has not been accepted as an IAB document 
>(which would only mean that the IAB indicates interest to work on 
>the topic) it is a bit premature to say what the opinion of the 
>entire IAB could be. On top of that the Nomcom selects IAB members 
>in a way that they cover a wide range of expertise - not everyone in 
>the IAB is looking at the application or the real-time area. Hence, 
>it is fair to say that some IAB members do not yet have a (strong) 
>opinion about these Web related topics. There was, however, enough 
>consensus to schedule a plenary discussion about it.

I expected that answer. :-)

Regards,
-sm