Re: [Ohttp] Discovery

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 1:22 AM Andrew Campling
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 25 Jun 2021, at 08:39, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Jun 2021, at 12:25 am, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> += The working group will consider and address operational matters, so
> that the output does not introduce any substantial negative impact to
> existing deployments.
> >
> >This is a very Russell's Teapot kind of requirement; quantifying that
> there is no 'substantial negative impact to existing deployments' is a
> massive undertaking, considering the size of the Internet.
> >
> >It's also loading a lot into 'operational matters'; the language seems to
> automatically prioritise them over any other concern engaged by the work.
> That seems deeply problematic to me; if we're going to prioritise anything,
> it should not be that.
> >
> >Lastly, it is effectively applying the Precautionary Principle to our
> work. While I strongly support the idea of being more careful and
> thoughtful in our actions, this is a 180 degree turn for the IETF, and I
> don't believe it's got the balance right to say that we must be certain
> there's no harm to a specific constituency to proceed.
>
> Noting RFC8890, if the Internet really is for end users then it seems
> perfectly valid that, at a minimum, consideration should be given to the
> operational impact of new protocols.  One way to address this would be to
> undertake some multi-stakeholder engagement


I believe that engagement is called "an IETF WG".

-Ekr