IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-discuss] Server Transition Briefing

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 02 April 2020 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7EC13A0BFA; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 tSUvYf1jGygq; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C38693A0A3C; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 11:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809783897D; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 14:05:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8082B609; Thu, 2 Apr 2020 14:07:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, Tools Team Discussion <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, IETF Tools Development <tools-development@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <DF41B337-D532-4928-AC59-919AB62DF100@vigilsec.com>
References: <3729CE09-D13F-436D-A917-0DEF91348E31@vigilsec.com> <258C4639-AD13-4524-9680-DFD7EC5A4C0F@vigilsec.com> <DF41B337-D532-4928-AC59-919AB62DF100@vigilsec.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.1.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 14:07:02 -0400
Message-ID: <9645.1585850822@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/rtqKJhIDGlSibjnxoY4tYaJvvjk>
Subject: Re: [Tools-discuss] Server Transition Briefing
X-BeenThere: tools-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-discuss>, <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 18:07:28 -0000

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
    > Here is a summary of the discussion on the call that took place on
    > March 11th.

Thank you.

    > Q4. What are the next steps toward separation of services to reduce
    > fragility and increase flexibility?

    > It was suggested that the IETF leverage things that are available in the
    > market wherever possible.  That is, avoid building custom software where
    > possible.

    > It was suggested that public cloud services should be used instead of
    > private cloud services.

I think that your notes do not adequately capture this tussle.
I think that Richard Barnes feels quite strongly about this.

I think that many others, while enthusiastic about not duplicating effort,
are concerned about loss of control, in particular, inability to deploy our
specifications early, and to do it properly, rather than "popularily"

    > It was suggested that microservices be explored.  An OpenID Connect or
    > OAuth 2.0 identity provider could be used to enable microservices.  Some
    > things that might be migrated to microservices are the Internet-Draft
    > repository and the Datatracker database.

The submission system... got this today, not for the first time:

obiwan-[ietf/anima/bootstrap](2.6.5) mcr 10066 %make submit
curl -S -F "user=mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" -F "xml=@ALL-dtbootstrap-anima-keyinfra.xml" https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/submit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>504 Gateway Timeout</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Gateway Timeout</h1>
<p>The gateway did not receive a timely response
from the upstream server or application.</p>
</body></html>

so I repeat:

obiwan-[ietf/anima/bootstrap](2.6.5) mcr 10067 %make submit
curl -S -F "user=mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca" -F "xml=@ALL-dtbootstrap-anima-keyinfra.xml" https://datatracker.ietf.org/api/submit
Validation Error: {'__all__': ['A submission with same name and revision is currently being processed. <a href="/submit/status/111297/">Check the status here.</a>']}%

I don't know if status.io can help us with this :-(


    > Wrap Up: Was this discussion useful?  If so, how often should we hold a
    > similar discussion?

    > People felt the discussion was useful, and it was suggested that they
    > be held quarterly.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email