Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol
2005-09-13 12:54:52
Jari Arkko wrote:
- Good architecture and good design. Placement of
functionality in the right place. I suspect that we
don't do enough work in this area. Almost all
of our activities are related to specific protocol
pieces, not so much on how they work together,
what the whole needs to do, what etc.
Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
These days, this seems to be the domain of the "systems"
standardization bodies, such as 3GPP and CableLabs. The 3GPP
architecture diagram seems to be a good demonstration object,
although it is not directly the fault of the IETF. (I think there
are some interesting reasons for complexity here, in particular the
need for interworking with legacy technology, that also appear
elsewhere.)
I don't think "architecture" necessarily means the kind of "systems"
architecture that the "systems" standardisation bodies are
producing. While the Internet architecture has never been defined in
terms of nodes and interconnections like the 3GPP architectures
typically are, I still think we had a fairly well functioning and
beautiful Internet architecture some 10-15 years back. So, it may
just be harder to pinpoint what the Internet architecture was, even
though I think that, for example, some of Bob Braden's slide sets
give quite a good idea.
Consequently, the kind of "new" architecture work that I think we
need might be called by some people something else, perhaps "vision",
rather than "architecture". That is, like we've had the e2e
principle for quite a long time, maybe we should try to develop a
number of almost as fundable principles, like ones for wireless
operations, mobility and multi-homing, o & m, distributed security
management, etc. Then, by consciously applying those principles to
existing protocol designs, sometimes perhaps working on
simultaneously in enhancing an existing protocol and in creating a
new "version" of the particular protocol, based on a completely
different architectural design, we might be able to inch to a
somewhat less complex overall architecture. OTOH, maybe I am just a
dreamer and totally off the ground here?
I suspect a fair amount of complexity is because we had to bolt on
various things (NAT traversal, security, reliability or large
messages seem common after-market add-ons) or couldn't arrive at
decisions during protocol design time.
I pretty much agree. Furthermore, more generally, I think that the
current state of the architecture is pretty much a consequence of
collectively not accepting the reality for a too long time. In my
quite humble opinion, a number of vocal people at the IETF have far
too long been preaching the architecture as it used to be 10-15 years
back, disparately trying to clung to the ideal and ignoring the
reality. As a result, the Internet architecture as-out-there-in-real-
life has ran over the architecture-as-in-our-heads, causing a
multitude of point solutions to be built to work around the problems
in the ideal architecture.
So, as I state in my little web page, I think we really should work
hard to create a new waist for the architecture. I, of course, have
my own theory where the new waist should be and how it should be
implemented, but I also try to stretch myself here to be as open
minded as I can in order to better understand the concerns from all
of the community. My problem is that I don't know how best to engage
the community in this kind of discussion, and relatedly, whether
creating "a vision of a new waist" is possible at all, or at least
whether it is possible to get any level of acceptance of such a
vision within the community.
--Pekka Nikander
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems", Pekka Nikander
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Richard Shockey
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Spencer Dawkins
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Richard Shockey
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Jari Arkko
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Masataka Ohta
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol,
Pekka Nikander <=
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Pekka Nikander
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Pekka Nikander
- HIP new possibilities, JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Re: "The IETF has difficulty solving complex problems" or alternatively Why IMS is a big fat ugly incomprehensiable protocol, Pekka Nikander
|
|
|