Subject: Re: [arch-d] Valid and Invalid Internet architectures and approaches

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 15:56:35 +0200

Tim,

I agree -- and would add that often the IETF succeeds better when
it gets to start from a relatively mature proposal, with architecture
and early designs worked out by a smaller group. I think we should
encourage this, particularly on areas that simultaneously have hard
problems, a number of possible alternative designs, designs that
deviate significantly from what we have now, no clear consensus on
what the right solution is, and when we are looking at an important
function.

Obviously, it is impossible to provide any sort of guarantees about
the end result, other than that serious proposals will be considered.
Whether that consideration results in a real change in IETF specifications
would have to be decided when we know what is being proposed,
what the benefits are, what the deployment implications are, etc.

However, what we can do is to encourage work on these areas.
In some cases the IRTF/IETF has even assisted efforts with the
publication of Experimental RFCs, RGs, etc. Also, independent
of solutions I would also encourage working with others in the
IETF to provide problem statements, allowing us to understand
better what issues we currently have.

--Jari

Tim Shepard wrote:

>(I'm behind on e-mail reading, and I'm responding to a message from 5
>days ago.)
>
>Tony Li said:
>
>  
>
>>Thomas,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Actually, I don't think the IAB is the right place for this to happen,
>>>at least not to get it going.
>>>      
>>>
>>Just to be crystal clear: I am *not* suggesting that the IAB actually be
>>the work force for this.  I *am* asking that the IAB clearly articulate
>>its openness to accept and standardize architectural changes to v6 at
>>this point.
>>    
>>
>
>I think that is asking for *way* too much.  Whether or not any
>architectural changes are going to be accepted and standardized
>depends on what those changes are and what the consequences would be.
>If/when any such changes are proposed, the community will evaluate
>them and decide.  The IAB is merely part of that community.
>
>The problem is that figuring out what is going to be the right thing
>to do is (at this point, at least) a matter of research.  And opinions
>will vary.
>
>There's nothing stopping anyone from investigating new architectures,
>writing protocol specifications, writing papers discussing the ideas,
>building prototype implementations, and teaching others about their work.
>
>The IAB holds no veto over what research can happen in network
>architecture, design, and implementation.
>
>And if the IAB or IESG were to make any statement that some particular
>proposal will not proceed within the IETF process, that is not an
>irreversible decision.
>
>For example, the folk working on HIP were told at the London IETF
>that HIP could not proceed within the IETF as its advocates wished.
>They kept on working on it anyway (and IMHO have made a valuable
>contribution to the field of network architecture).
>
>I wish HIP were not the only such example in the last 5 years.  It
>would be nice if there were a number of architected, designed,
>implemented, and (experementally) deployed worked examples
>demonstrating alternative ways of doing things.  Running code that
>can be read alongside protocol specifications and architecture
>documents is very valuable.
>
>
>  
>
>>>The first step is to get a small design team together ...
>>>      
>>>
>>Before that can happen, the design team members need to know that their
>>work can possibly succeed.  Right now, no one is willing to invest in
>>this because the outcome seems preordained.  Only the IAB is really in a
>>position to reverse this.
>>
>>Tony
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree.  Anybody can reverse this if they are willing to invest
>effort into seeing an idea along.
>
>HIP got to where it is today through slow recruitment (over 7 years)
>into an expanding community of fans through hallway conversations at
>IETF meetings and other venues.  The IAB has, AFAIK, no power to
>regulate what people talk about in the hallways of IETF meetings,
>nor in the larger networking research community.
>
>If you want to move an idea within the IETF community, I suggest (1)
>write it down as clearly as you can (anyone can publish an internet
>draft on anything), and (2) recruit fans of the idea, and (3) to
>your hallway conversations at IETF meetings (and to the larger
>networking research community), bring open-source prototype
>implementations that you can demo and let other people read and test
>drive.
>
>The IAB and IESG are in charge of the IETF process.  They do not
>control the fate of ideas.  The community does.
>
>I hope this is helpful.
>
>			-Tim Shepard
>			 [email-masked]
>
>_______________________________________________
>Architecture-discuss mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:16:02 -0500

Hi Brian, still tracking and reading it and not giving implementation
input yet till it matures but IMO it is very close, but that is still
the case you state below, and for any solutions we do need to do the
same as SHIM6 did assuming nothing is exposed except the IP header (e.g.
for QoS, Streaming Media, Network Management). Caveat is with IPv6 there
could be a DST, HOP-BY-HOP, others.. option before the IPsec SPI after
the IP header.  There is a proposal now in ITU to use IPv6 option for
QoS data per Dr. Larry Roberts as you probably know, which we rejected
here in the IETF for the time being.

NB: Also as a note as long time IETF member I am very happy and
impressed with your IETF Chair Leadership and do notice the subtle but
evolutionary changes for the IETF and our community and attention to
detail on our processes (I LOVE the new Dinner model :--)).  Good job
sir. And out of the IETF I am far more supportive of the progress we are
making to streamline deliverables regarding time-to-market which is very
important out of the IETF for us to not be avoided, and trust me on that
one :--).

Thanks
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 8:47 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [arch-d] Valid and Invalid Internet 
> architectures and approaches
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> > As long as the edges do not have to look at the payload 
> because it is
> > encrypted and can just forward the packet from the IP 
> header then all is
> > ok, but if not that is still an issue regarding end-to-end 
> for SHIM6?
> 
> Unless they changed something since I stopped being active in shim6,
> it really has no impact on IPSec - the addresses are flipped after
> the crypto computation at the sender and before the crypto computation
> at the receiver.
> 
>     Brian
> 
>