3 Thursday Plenary

Wednesday Plenary

Current Meeting Report

Minutes from Thursday Plenary discussion:

How about focusing on the end-user experience?

      • Solve user-related out-of-the box zeroconf?
      • How much do we have to design the upper layers in ensuring everything will run on IP?
      • There are multiple sources of config info, hard to discern what/why something breaks

      • What should we have put into SIP to make a VoIP phone easier to configure?

      • The easiest parameter to configure is the one you don’t have to.
        • Why not seek simplicity from the outset?
        • Special cases for addressing, authentication, (other knobs) do not help
        • Rather than “use-cases” …how about “user-cases” ?
        • PCs are getting to the point where only my kids can configure them
        • People who design the end-user experience are not here (at IETF)
        • How about adding a new section to all future RFCs … on “User Experience”
        • W3C had a team which focussed on schemas … produced a primer on how to do it (simple) …
        • Enroll … we have a WG which not enough people are attending

Mandatory sections are evil

  • Protocol Models:
      • Very valuable new RFC4101
      • How about putting some effort into disseminating the contents of that RFC to the community (e.g. at Sunday tutorials) ?
      • Complexity dealt with in RFC3439

  • Concern about the growing complexity and total number of protocols out there.
      • IAB and IESG have been thinking/worrying about this for >10 years
      • Lots of effort for configuring some devices (e.g. PCs) is to deal with non-standard complexities
      • Should we invite a report from NANOG during IETF on “the TOP 10 things we are really upset about” ?

Layer Creep / Stack Creep:

      • Concern that some functions are being reinvented in different layers
      • We have TCP and UDP … why not just one?
      • We promulgate multiple solutions (let many flowers bloom) … would it help to change this?
      • Maybe we are spending too much time on layers 8-10
      • Of course, there is lots going on at other layers which are beyond the IETF’s scope (i.e. domain of other standards bodies)

      • (Protocol lipo suction ? Or full-blown surgery …)

      • Infinite tunneling vs. shorter torso/waist height (remove vertebrae)

User experience and NATs
  • How many of us help our relatives with their computers?
  • … TOO MANY … we are failing !
  • … or the scope of people’s expectations and universe is expanding … which complicates things
  • We have no reasonable way for people to manage “walls” … our relatives need managed devices, enabled by reasonable signaling protocols

  • Do we need an AETF ? (Applic’ns Eng’g TF) ?

  • Subscription-based protocols ?  Is the internet no-longer end-to-end? 
  • There are many sloppy implementations out there … maybe a lot of what we leave as user-configurable parameters should be hard coded
  • Put some layers on a diet?  The entire community would need to pull together to make this happen (i.e. recover some of the simplicity we used to have).

Message Architecture:

  • Do we need it to use a single protocol at this stage of development?
  • For IM or mail, we used a single protocol for a long time to transport store and forward messages …
  • Features vs. complexity – hard to “add” simplicity
  • - normal cycle is design, then simplify
  • - imposing the above would run a risk of slowing our process(es)
  • Is it still acceptable to publish standards-track RFCs that only address IPv4?  We still have layer 3 work going on today which ignores IPv6

      • OSPFv2 is IPv4-specific
      • OSPFv3 is v6-specific … fact of life … sometimes we don’t have a choice

  • “Acceptable” to whom?
  • Experimental RFCs without text on v6 may be OK

Observation: perhaps more people would be stimulated to read more I-Ds if each came with a Powerpoint presentation (e.g. like an abstract / overview) ?

What if WGs had a page to present an overview of their technology?  It is not a good assumption to hope everyone has read the drafts

  • www.ietf.org and www.iab.org don’t appear to be running v6 on any server?
      • Is this really the case?  (Yes, except for the 3 weeks each year when IETF meets)
      • What kind of example are we setting for the world ??

      • Comment: NOC team did a great job to get v6 running over the Wireless network this week.

  • Economic models … some influential stakeholders (e,g. network administrators) might want some consideration ….

  • IETF structure:  lots of WGs working on short term, fast time to market issues … and only 15 people (viz. IAB) looking at the bigger picture and the future
  • 15 is not enough
  • Compelling visions for how things will get better could stimulate different activities, attract different people, to the IETF … spawn a new ‘branch’ (or Area) within the IETF
  • Aaron is trying to help the IRTF connect better with the IETF, and the IAB is also trying to encourage more of this

  • We have lots of trade-offs to worry about:
  • Balance takes time and consideration
  • Designing simple protocols is really hard (like writing a message that fits on just 1 page?)
  • Pain-shifting … always a lot of desire to shift the pain of complexity to somebody else
  • Nobody is for reducing innovation … while innovation often generates more options (and therefore complexity) ?


Application Security: Threats and Architecture
IRTF Report
Internet Congestion Control Research Group
IAB Town Hall