Re: [Speermint] shutting down and the arch doc

[Otmar Lendl <[e-mail]>]

Jon,

On 27.05.2010 20:50, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 
> While all IETF working groups look forward to the day they can close
> their doors, I'm not sure I'd be happy to see SPEERMINT make its final
> bow without completing the architecture document.

As it stands, the architecture draft is mostly worthless as it offers
unspecific bromides and gives little guidance concerning any contentious
issues.

> I believe that in the LUF/LRF distinction, the SPEERMINT group has
> captured an idea that is valuable, and moreover one which, as the
> original charter of this group intended, identifies a reality of
> deployments that the standards community had previously ignored. It
> explodes the conceit that a one-step resolution process, just
> transforming a telephone number into a "global" URI, will address the
> needs of the sort of peering communities this group examines. While the
> distinction between LUF and LRF is not a precise one, and has never been
> immensely well understood, I contend that it is valuable nonetheless,
> and that if confusion about the idea prompts us to discard the work in
> SPEERMINT, I have no reason to expect anything different to happen in
> DRINKS or any other group that must operate on these same architectures.
> I don't think the sketches in the terminology draft suffice as a
> foundation for that work.

This is certainly true, but once again, the current architecture draft
doesn't really put any meat on the LUF/LRF distinction.

> Finishing the architecture document is not solving world hunger. While
> everything in the IETF takes much longer than you'd imagine, I don't
> think this has to be one or two years out - I think it would be
> reasonable to make a final push to clear up the snags in the document,
> and just set a deadline by which this group will emit it as an
> Informational. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be able to
> serve as the framework for the subsequent discussions in DRINKS and
> other future arenas. I think this is an an achievable, and relatively
> honorable, way to round up the work that the SPEERMINT charter
> originally laid out.

If you want a post-mortem of the SPEERMINT WG as a reference for future
IETF work, might I suggest you take a look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lendl-speermint-background-02
which summarizes my thoughts on the SPEERMINT problem-space.

It also includes a clear description of the LUF/LRF issue.
Section 5 proposes an architecture.

I think this draft is a better starting-point than the current architecture
draft if you want to leave something behind for other WGs to pick up.

> 
> If there is enough energy here for one last jaunt, I'd be happy to
> assist that effort in any capacity.

Same here. I even might make it to Maastricht.

otmar

PS, and then there are
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lendl-domain-policy-ddds-02
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lendl-speermint-federations-03
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lendl-speermint-technical-policy-00
which actually proposed a protocol to solve a good part of the speermint
problem space.
-- 
// Otmar Lendl <[e-mail]>, T: [phone] - 33, F: - 933 //