ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Working across WGs versus charter fetishes

2015-04-28 11:36:38
In theory the purpose of having the IETF meet as it does is to
encourage people in different areas to work together.

So why is it that whenever I propose designing something for WG A in a
fashion that allows it to be used by working group B along the road
that there is a constant chorus of 'out of scope'?

If we are going to work together then it has to be possible for
someone in the S/MIME world to say in their WG 'hey, OpenPGP has
already done it this way, why not copy'. Equally it should be possible
for someone in IPSEC to say 'hey, the TLS folk have won, why not work
on a common approach to key exchange'.

Instead anyone suggesting that we try to do things in a consistent way
across IETF have to keep explaining why an approach that allows for
consistency across WGs should be considered.


I think people need to think very carefully before entering into
discussions if the only input they have is to shoot down a use case.

If there are two proposals on the table and no clear way to choose
between them, the way to address the issue is to look for more use
cases that can serve as a tie breaker.

The point of working group focus is to get work done. Litigating the
question of whether a use case has standing is invariably a waste of
time. None of us can fully anticipate the uses for which a technology
will be put and the most successful IETF protocols are precisely the
ones that have supported such uses.

Just because a use case is on the table does not mean that there is an
obligation to address it.


The point of a charter is to focus a working group on a set of
deliverables. A charter should never become an obstacle to working
across working groups or across areas.

In the particular case that has set me off this time, the issue is
whether a not-yet WG would spin up yet another IANA registry for its
own exclusive use or make use of the MIME Content-Type registry.

Of course if you narrow the scope of the problem to one WG and nothing
outside its scope, there is 'nothing to choose' between the two
approaches. A new registry will serve just as well as the existing one
(besides creating more work) because the advantages of using
Content-Type have been ruled out of scope. But it doesn't bring any
advantage either.


One of the things we seem to lack in IETF is some sort of friction
when it comes to creating new registries. JOSE has just created a new
set of crypto registries instead of re-using the PEM set and there are
a half dozen other crypto registries besides. We seem to re-invent the
MIME content-type registry repeatedly. And quite why .well-known, URI
and SRV should be separate is a mystery to me.

In general, the way to get interoperation between protocols and avoid
silos is for people to use existing registries whenever possible.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>