Re: [tcpm] poll for adopting draft-gont-tcp-security

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Lloyd Wood wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2009, at 20:27, Joe Touch wrote:
>>
>>>> If you care that much about the implementations,
>>>> then change them. It'd be more productive than simply documenting what
>>>> has been implemented instead.
>>>
>>> Implementation experience is an important input to developing and
>>> refining an IETF standard.
>>>
>>> The IETF standard can't be defined wholly on paper theoretically de
>>> jure, or wholly in implementations de facto. There's a meeting in the
>>> middle - hence
>>> consensus and code.
>>
>> Please review sec 9.1 of the TAO of the IETF.
> 
> You might want to reread that. From section 9.1 of the Tao of the IETF:
> 
> 'One of the oft-quoted tenets of the IETF is "running code wins"'

You need to quote the entire passage:

Implement -- Write programs that use the current Internet standards. The
standards aren't worth much unless they are available to Internet users.
Implement even the "minor" standards, since they will become less minor
if they appear in more software. Report any problems you find with the
standards to the appropriate Working Group so that the standard can be
clarified in later revisions. One of the oft-quoted tenets of the IETF
is "running code wins", so you can help support the standards you want
to become more widespread by creating more running code.

I.e., to support the standards, make running code. Notice it doesn't say
doing things the other way around.

...
> (If TCPM doesn't take on this work, then TCPM is irrelevant, and the
> IETF likely abdicates any authority it had on TCP. Still, there's
> always adding new stuff to SCTP, eh?)

You're basically claiming that RFC2525 was a waste of time. I disagree.

The WG needs to decide what we want (consensus - which means my voice
counts as much as yours or Fernando's), and decide what position we
should take. No, I don't think TCPM's charter is to run around trying to
standardize or, worse, document without taking a stand, every place
where implementation differs from standard.

In 1999 we had a backbone and decided between deployey* bugs (per 2525)
and things we wanted to change that weren't deployed (e.g., the TOS bit,
which was changed in RFC2873). All I'm asking is that we do the same
now, not just claim that deployed code is the basis of an appropriate
position.

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpPww8ACgkQE5f5cImnZru6DwCgtu6VGxEKaYcziyeU+oYAI0HD
idkAoK88uotddLqHUigHlaRVU0NwzEDB
=4bLD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----