Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver
Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net> Fri, 01 November 2013 19:15 UTC
Return-Path: <tim@ripe.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCDF11E8179 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJNgkhlysgym for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:15:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11FD11E8126 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2013 12:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nene.ripe.net ([193.0.23.10]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1VcKBe-0007YK-Un; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:15:27 +0100
Received: from puppy.ripe.net ([193.0.1.230] helo=[IPv6:::1]) by nene.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <tim@ripe.net>) id 1VcKBe-0001wu-GD; Fri, 01 Nov 2013 20:15:14 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Tim Bruijnzeels <tim@ripe.net>
In-Reply-To: <20131020170318.5AF3F172B7@thrintun.hactrn.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:15:19 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D043A792-D8BB-4DEA-8912-CE59BF82289C@ripe.net>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310151530160.18745@fledge.watson.org> <20131020170318.5AF3F172B7@thrintun.hactrn.net>
To: Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816575, check: 20131101 clean
X-RIPE-Spam-Level: ---
X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -3.4 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -0.5 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000]
X-RIPE-Signature: 784d7acfe6559f2a0b602ec6519a0719c292686eac300187769f21a85339d1f1
Cc: sidr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2013 19:15:33 -0000
Hi Rob, Sorry for the belated reply. In short I support pursuing this work and prefer separating the publication protocol parts from the config protocol. It may indeed be helpful if you did a short presentation on this to refresh the WG memory. More details inline. On Oct 20, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Rob Austein <sra@hactrn.net> wrote: > Sam and I think we probably should say something about > draft-ietf-sidr-publication, if only we knew what. > > I just submitted -04, partly to get the expired draft back in front of > people's eyes, partly to address formatting issues that made the > schema and examples unnecessarily hard to read. An rfcdiff of the > changes is available at: > > http://subvert-ietf.hactrn.net/sidr-publication/draft-ietf-sidr-publication-04-from-3.diff.html > > The question for the WG, though, is where we want to go with this > draft. It's not dead: my implementation uses an old version of it, > Tim based parts of draft-tbruijnzeels-sidr-delta-protocol on it, and > at one point the WG agreed that it was a useful tool to have in the > box, which is why it's a WG document. But it has not gotten a lot of > traction recently. We suspect this is because interoperable > publication service is not currently on anybody's critical path. Indeed, setting up or using a publication service is not on our critical path. > Tim suggested to me at one point that perhaps we should drop the > entire control sub-protocol from this draft, leaving just the > publication sub-protocol. This seems worth discussing. The delta protocol document is based on the publication parts of the document only. The idea being that, if a standard publication protocol exists, it would be good to minimise the additional work that a publication server would have to do produce deltas. Re-using the existing publish/withdraw messages one to one is one way to achieve this. It means less work for the server, and less work trying to re-define this in standards. This approach does mean that some delta concerns may want to be addressed in this document. I already raised a few ideas in person with Rob. I can raise them again, but I would prefer to do that in a separate thread and when the document is split (if indeed the authors and wg agree with that idea). > We included the control protocol in the original draft because the only existing > implementation (mine) uses it, but one could make a reasonable case > that it's only the publication sub-protocol which brings any real > value as an open public standard. I found the control sub-protocol a bit confusing, and I just don't understand it well enough to judge whether it's re-usable and should be standard, or if you're only documenting your implementation. In either case I am in favour of smaller documents addressing only a specific problem, and therefore separating this work, in standards track if it's re-usable, or informational (but up to you of course if you want to do the work) in the other case. > > For the record, this agenda request and the -04 version come from two > of the draft's three authors. We have a query out to our third > co-author, but have not yet heard back, so please blame anything to do > with this draft since -03 on me and Sam. > _______________________________________________ > sidr mailing list > sidr@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
- [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver SIDR Secretary
- Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver Rob Austein
- Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver Rob Austein
- [sidr] Final call: Soliciting agenda ideas for Va… SIDR Secretary
- Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver Stephen Kent
- Re: [sidr] Soliciting agenda ideas for Vancouver Tim Bruijnzeels