Re: [Nea] UPDATED: WG Review: Network Endpoint Assessment (nea)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



As far as I can tell, this is the crux of the problem with NEA - that in general it's simply unreasonable for a network to demand that every host that connect to it conform to arbitrary policies for configuration of those hosts. IETF should not be standardizing unreasonable expectations. And even if the behavior is in some limited set of circumstances reasonable (which is debatable), IMHO IETF should hesitate to define standards for corner cases.

That is not my understanding of the problem statement.
My understanding is that the specification will provide a description of the host configuration policy to the network, thus allowing the network to better decide whether to let the host connect.

that's my understanding also. but nothing you said here contradicts my statement. if connection of the host to the network is predicated on having the host conform to whatever arbitrary policy the network wishes to impose on how the host is configured, then it's unreasonable. the most that the network should be able to do is impose limitations on the kinds of traffic that host sends to or receives from the network.

more broadly, the likely effect of standardizing a protocol that lets the network insist on a particular configuration for a host is to make the network less flexible over time, by reducing the number of kinds of hosts that can connect to a network. the unintended consequence of this proposal would thus be to reduce the flexibility of the Internet.

It is a network protocol, not an inter-network protocol.

true, but not relevant to this argument.

The other problem I have with this charter is one that I have with many charters these days - it presupposes a particular design or architecture before the working group has actually met, when this should be an engineering decision taken by the consensus of the working group AFTER analysis of the problem space.

That is the approach that the IETF has been configured for for 15 years.

yes, and IMHO it's been wrong for 15 years.

Working Groups that do no begin with a tightly defined architecture usually fail.

that might say more about how WGs operate than anything else.

we claim to do engineering around here, but the discipline of engineering requires that we understand a problem before we attempt to solve it. as long as we're not bothering to do that, we shouldn't be surprised when working groups produce "solutions" that don't solve problems. and there are plenty of these to be found in rfc-index.txt.

Keith


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]