IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 02:47 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3628A130EBD for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:47:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 H0sMlrx0o28T for <rfcplusplus@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x232.google.com (mail-oi0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BB1812F1AB for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x232.google.com with SMTP id 13-v6so53090194ois.1 for <rfcplusplus@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=61NMFlR3P5/JIFf48I53QP8NBUSUfVIIc50I9gh22cQ=; b=BAs4peNpFJdG+U8NFO3Z7EhRZSjXfxkThCVOVlXQ43Bf7nuZttDYV4sUF9DtByu8Fo 4KMWQCZ1pu2FAd8MXdpAXTH9qBvhKBk1vDpG3uHTVOwHo0pyTZfvsLqUN+n6gLupzCZo dCPCbJb98JCTG2Gymj05viFkutFVgzVNc3aGpLBDh7GjZ3d/TMdC3UUex2Tqf8rhOm0T +FrjQAjtbQoAwBqSutxjsPaENz2YC6FqChAPkAsM8l5QST9WYx/JpswUi2eNe2+xlsCm O/cFxSuR+U7G0Gj7jN4uxnN64zWS+jTPaJOWsLlJvCcDpnTJrXff6VfOtwVONfhSwbc/ qrqg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=61NMFlR3P5/JIFf48I53QP8NBUSUfVIIc50I9gh22cQ=; b=r0lJiyeha78TWQh7v5DZ99vdWEMC9eEVW2M1qfLtwT42tReFuf4U4ACULT96JKAH9Y 5SF91i0e0EJeKgUx3SBpOmXcc8iOHw59epAktZdYkE6IYpQ5tuelYTBRDTlg5oaZ+tdr Wzkqy2lxdD1bQCh+ik6FqJHR2GSlr0NVXZ7q/BqlCSpAegIhKQ2rxBBj9V1jL4GcJiZr Qjz+zaMF9uvplHpmGBxdzY/oMJYY7dK2/Rzp2+1KjZeDqV9x3y5KUd3hQQW6GMAkA4+Z H7awRibjHoMLXSKp2DBnpb1GZzsDkc28EHT7zzcct7J9EQiE7KYyPMY6AngXg2D/uknj Nakw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlEHYC4LI/q5USYDP/odaAqFTmsh80pipIZTvOPd5vmo6VfuIi/6 pKj8J58HN/Dk74vR30mtZFx0hhSNsXBnudy5dvM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpfMDP6YEBmjkO1rvKf/dOvJWGDr1U6HYjXectuhzChAppKw0ZPs9reDxOqYuXABnlnIvyViVX6FHaxCfDzwIFg=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:5155:: with SMTP id f82-v6mr457343oib.272.1531363676753; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 19:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMBVC82qy0hbUbQKm=OsFPsaJUPndtVaxd782au6Qy0w6Q@mail.gmail.com> <a4b50286-5c54-e6cf-9087-7171030b7fca@juniper.net> <C9EBFF44-DB93-45E4-954D-2AC5E2F47D03@gmail.com> <20180710192810.GQ20282@mx4.yitter.info> <0e127473-902a-2421-6b5d-73f9e7f83286@juniper.net> <20180710204512.GT20282@mx4.yitter.info> <af1d2bc2-2027-0a4b-856a-35b35c386624@gmail.com> <3e8272be-50fb-113b-fd6f-a5850d668472@mozilla.com> <baa4f311ebe6f334ffd64b49f73a2231.squirrel@www.amsl.com> <aa7c626a-c34e-e38d-8762-ad53abac3630@mozilla.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20180711100739.0bc10fe0@elandnews.com> <0e28a2e9-d20d-5946-405a-e5c508ab590b@mozilla.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20180711152805.07d07338@elandnews.com> <35e8460f-7db7-98d7-7143-3aafff16b9fa@gmail.com> <CABkgnnXvjy2c7FkCDP58TkyXdtWKy_KmZwKCFLq+dJ1p3msWUA@mail.gmail.com> <618c78fa-c2c2-aa7d-f8e8-f0748609f438@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <618c78fa-c2c2-aa7d-f8e8-f0748609f438@joelhalpern.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 12:47:46 +1000
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWTBgVE6=9-0buZqvNbRTM-dC=Ty_GaHt4sdrCA-ypxJg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
Cc: rfcplusplus@ietf.org, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, stpeter@mozilla.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfcplusplus/HKFS4DC4267nuBGu8PwwHidfI2s>
Subject: Re: [Rfcplusplus] Conversation as metaphor
X-BeenThere: rfcplusplus@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: For discussion of the RFC++ BoF proposal and related ideas <rfcplusplus.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfcplusplus/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfcplusplus@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfcplusplus>, <mailto:rfcplusplus-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:48:00 -0000

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 12:19 PM Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote:
> At least in the areas I work in, RFCs when published describe protocols
> which have seen limited implementation or deployment.  Even when we are
> revising widely deployed protocols, the revisions or enhancements have
> usually experienced limtitd implementation or deployment.  We like to
> have some experience (IDR for example requires two implementations).  We
> rarely have large numbers of vendors implementing, since most vendors
> wait for the document to stabilize and be published as an RFC before
> they implement.

Yes, this is common.  What we did with HTTP/2 and TLS is perhaps weird
in that we deployed pretty widely well before the RFC was published.
My point was that the ability for the RFC to predict and ultimately
describe the reality of the Internet is grounded in either the actual
deployment (ideal) or the strength of the commitment of those who
participate in the process (the process you describe).  That RFCs end
up describing reality with a non-trivial proability means that we are
moderately successful in identifying which protocols will be deployed.

In other words, running code and all that.

> So I am very confused by your text describing RFCs that "describe reality".

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status