Re: [Model-t] draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-00

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian,

Thanks for the comments, I'll process 'em more thoroughly
later but just wanted to comment on one thing for now, so
folks who'll be in Singapore next week can think about it
en-route...

On 13/11/2019 20:56, Christian Huitema wrote:
> Draft-arkko-farrell-arch-model-t-00 addresses much of the threats
> discussed in draft-lazanski-smart-users-internet-00, including efforts
> to delineate what we should really mean by end-to-end. There are
> differences in tone, as Lazanski's draft reads more like an advocacy for
> different classes of defense, but beyond the difference in tone there is
> an important difference in focus on threats against businesses, botnets,
> and persistent actors.
> 
> I think the threat model should try integrate some of these threat
> descriptions. 

ISTM your comment above assumes a modus-operandi where we
try to integrate various folks' efforts now(ish), which is
indeed something we will want to eventually do, but I'm
not sure if doing that now, versus a bit later, is the
better plan.

I think there may be value in trying to see where these
different starting points lead people for a while; not
in a competitive sense but rather to see what common
outcomes or conclusions might emerge. There are as you
note already lots of things in common in the two drafts
you mention, and I'd love to see if others who also worked
independently ended up in similar places (or not).

I've a few reasons why I think doing more work before
trying to integrate might be a good plan:

- we won't need to argue about motivating text near so
  much:-)
- we're not in that much of a rush that we need to get
  done in a few months
- we may get more viewpoints and broader input if there
  isn't just one document on which we're working
- but mostly, I think the interesting output here has
  to be concise to be useful- much moreso than the draft
  Jari and I posted, so we'll in any case have to extract
  the important bits that can make sense IETF-wide (as
  a possible BCP72 update) and therefore may never need a
  perfect 30 page document (and/or if we might find it
  easier to post-facto justify the concise text compared
  to aiming for something like rough consensus on the
  all the motivating text).

That's something I think may be worth chatting about in
Singapore.

Cheers,
S.