On 29/04/2015 04:36, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 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'?
Maybe they didn't read RFC 1958:
3.2 If there are several ways of doing the same thing, choose one.
If a previous design, in the Internet context or elsewhere, has
successfully solved the same problem, choose the same solution unless
there is a good technical reason not to. Duplication of the same
protocol functionality should be avoided as far as possible, without
of course using this argument to reject improvements.
Brian
> 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.
>
>