Re: [Model-t] Next steps from Tuesday's breakfast meeting

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

I agree with all below except I'd not say "competing." The
way I think about it is people are working independently on
more or less the same thing but from different perspectives
and bringing different backgrounds. And that's a good
thing.

So I hope we don't think about this in terms of competition
but rather as a set of people taking different paths to
what we hope might be the same destination.

Cheers,
S.

On 22/11/2019 04:09, Jari Arkko wrote:
> Thanks Robin and all.
> 
> On Melinda’s question — the following is my personal opinion:
> 
> First off, I think we need to produce IETF outputs. It is great that
> the IAB has kicked off work and is hosting the mailing list, but I
> ultimately this is primarily IETF results. Definitely the 3552 change
> needs to be.
> 
> Secondly, as Stephen says we’ll benefit from some parallel and
> independent works at the moment. That being said, I think there’s
> some value in brainstorming a bit even in the short term about where
> the different pieces of work might develop into. I’ve also chatted
> with some of you about this. From the document that me and Stephen
> have, we’re going to do one round of introducing additional
> materials, already in ÷  on our editor’s version but not yet
> published. Things like taking into account points made in our meeting
> this week and at the SAAG meeting last time. But moving forward, I
> think I see our document evolving/split into different parts:
> 
> * Analysis of why things have changed & architectural considerations
> (the bulk of our current doc) * Suggested edits to 3552 (we have some
> of that now, but I suspect at some point someone is going to write a
> cleaner and better standalone document about it) * Guidelines for
> designers on what to do avoid some of the issues (we have some of
> that, but again might be better as standalone document, or perhaps
> with competing proposals)
> 
> But in addition to this, there are many other parts that might
> benefit from having independent documents. E.g., a discussion of
> attacks and issues that we’ve seen that support the case for more
> careful consideration of these issues (Dominique or Ali perhaps). Or,
> a document on trust and where that comes from and plays with
> architecture (Melinda or Ted/Martin perhaps). A vulnerability
> analysis (Robin, perhaps). And I don’t mean to say we should avoid
> competing documents, those are very welcome at this point as well.
> But it is still worthwhile to think about the different aspects that
> one might want to write about, and focus a particular piece on a
> chosen angle.
> 
> Jari
>