Subject: Re: [arch-d] Systems theory: The IETF "addicted" to "symptomatic solutions" aka "point solutions"?

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:11:47 -0500 (EST)

> From: John Day <[email-masked]>

    > We have been avoiding fundamentally resolving anything for the past 30
    > years. .. The constant patching is doing far more harm than good.
    > People try to rationalize it as "small incremental change." Small
    > incremental change can work, IF there is a goal. ... Yes, we can come
    > up with ways to "make it work." Actually that is fairly easy. But they
    > don't contribute to reaching a desired end state. In fact, we don't
    > really know where each of them takes us and it is probably deeper into
    > the woods.

I agree wholeheartedly with all this. However...

    > It is virtually impossible for organizations to change culture. .. It
    > is even harder in committees where power is bottom up not top down. Not
    > only is it hard to change the mind set, but there is too much vested
    > interest in the status quo to allow a successful change.

After the IPv6 debacle (picking a solution which was, proudly, the exact same
architecture as IPv4, when, manifestly, "more of the same, just with one
field bigger" was *NOT* the solution), one of my comrades-in-arms and I sat
down and had a long post-mortem, the subject of which was "we failed, and not
just ourselves, we failed in our duty to the network community as a whole -
how did we screw up, and what could/should we have done different to have had
a different outcome".

The sad conclusion we came to (and if some want to say it was just
rationalizing/excusing our failure, feel free, I don't give a rat's posterior
any more) was that the task was, by definition, impossible. You don't get
large consensus-based communities to take big leaps into the dark - and
a radical architectural change is, by definition, a big leap into the dark.

Yes, to a great architect, it's not a big leap - but not everyone has that
kind of architectural vision. To most people, it just looks like a big, risky
step into unknown territory, and they just aren't comfortable going there.
So you're *never* going to get a large consensus-based group to take a big
architectural step. Sorry.

  "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually
  winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul
  becomes Paul."  -- Max Planck, "The Philosophy of Physics"

I expect the next big revolution in computer communications too come from some
group outside the IETF, a group which is small, and designs, builds and
deploys some new thing which can utilize/interoperate with the existing
Internet, but is fundamentally different. Once it is seen to be good, others
will take it up.

Most everyone can see reality, only a few people can see visions with as much
clarity as they see reality.

    > I am afraid the IETF may have become the new bell heads.

Your conclusion is basically correct - except that I would call them the
new ISO.

The corollaries are amazing. The Tuba designers couldn't get the CLNP
community to sign on to TUBA "because we have deployed base already, even
though there's very little of it in total, and this subset of CLNP is
incompatible with that base". Now we hear "we can't make what are obviously
badly-needed changes to IPv6 because we already have some deployed base,
although it's really very small, and this is incompatible with that base".

Oh well....

    > Sorry to be on such a downer this morning.

"CYNIC, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as
they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a
cynic's eyes to improve his vision." - Ambrose Bierce, 'The Devil's Dictionary'

I don't wish to discourage people who want to try and change/improve things.
I wish them well, and hope they succeed.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Architecture-discuss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 07:42:34 -0800

> Your conclusion is basically correct - except that I would call them the

	So...its not that I disagree here (and I understand the
	history/frustration/... of the whole debacle), but what I
	can say that I have been impressed by the desire of folks
	in the IETF (and the I* in particular) to take a look at
	what can be done in this space. I think many of the folks
	who were at the AMS workshop (and here, SAN IETF) might
	agree with me on this point.

	In any event, as I said in AMS, lets "give peace a
	chance" and see if we can't make some progress. Yeah,
	things were/are broken. But that's the past. Let's look
	forward where we can. And lets also note well that the
	"proof" will be in what we produce (and more importantly,
	what we deploy). 

	--dmm

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:19:39 -0500

>Your conclusion is basically correct - except that I would call them the

I will have to disagree, Noel and I think the details are quite 
instructive.  You saw it from the outside.  I was there.

When OSI began in March 1978 it came out of computer companies and 
the IFIPWG 6.1 efforts to push the connectionless approach to 
networking further.  OSI's mistake was inviting the phone companies 
into the game. (This occurred in late 79 or early 80 if memory 
serves.  Up to that time, CCITT had their own competing effort.  Also 
remember that at this point IBM had SNA which was hierarchical. 
Which they understood to be completely incompatible with the peer 
design of packet networks.  They knew their only strategy was to 
stall, which they did.  So by 1980, OSI had 3 major poles pulling it 
in very different and incompatible directions.) Without deregulation 
it was probably impossible for the Europeans not to try to coopt the 
PTTs.

The PTTs brought a complete incompatible view of the world and there 
was no way to reconcile the differences.  So it ended up being two 
incompatible architectures.  OSI's destruction was seeded entirely by 
its own internal contradictions.  By inviting in the PTTs, there was 
no way that an effective result was going to emerge.  The PTTs were 
going to do all they could to protect their status quo and were not 
going to allow the kind of results that would have allowed a clean 
effective break.

Had the ISO OSI developed alone there is a good chance that 
significant progress would have been made and been visible to the 
outside world.  As it was, progress was made, but it so piled up with 
PTT garbage that you had to know where to look.

I am not arguing that OSI got it right. Because I don't think they 
did.  It might have been a step on the path to getting it right. 
More data for how to get it right.  There was still major things we 
didn't know, and even a better OSI would have been solidified before 
they were known and could have affected the structure.

But no, to have the IETF involved in developing a new architecture is 
much more like OSI inviting the phone companies to participate. 
There is far too much vested interested in status quo to allow 
another consensus group to make a clean break and do what needs to be 
done.  So the IETF are more like the new bellheads, not a new ISO.

More later,
John

---

From: John Day <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 11:59:24 -0500

>architectural step. Sorry.

Fundamentally you are correct.  Consensus organizations are 
inherently conservative.  However, this particular issue was 
immensely complicated by the fact that the academic community had 
completely failed to teach the principles of networking and had 
turned it into a purely vocational education task.  I remember being 
completely surprised how few people understood the addressing issues 
that surrounded that fiasco.  They were understood in the circles I 
had been in and was completely surprised by how few understood them 
then or now.  (You can see this problem in the frequency with which 
we get the question on various lists "Why can't we have portable IP 
addresses?"  For me, this is a sure sign that the basics were never 
taught.

>Internet, but is fundamentally different. Once it is seen to be good, others

You are right. It can't come from the IETF.

>Your conclusion is basically correct - except that I would call them the

See previous note.

>although it's really very small, and this is incompatible with that base".

Isn't that rationale (both then and now) just doublespeak for "I am 
holding out because I still believe my position will finally win"? 
;-)

I am really saddened when I see an organization that I believed was 
suppose to be dedicated to straight shooting and telling it like it 
is resort to spin and marketing hype of the sort we just suffered 
through in the US for the past few weeks.

>I wish them well, and hope they succeed.

Glad you are so upbeat!  ;-)

John

---

From: Jefsey_Morfin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:00:20 +0100

At 16:11 09/11/2006, Noel Chiappa wrote:
>I expect the next big revolution in computer communications too come 
>from some group outside the IETF, a group which is small, and 
>designs, builds and deploys some new thing which can 
>utilize/interoperate with the existing Internet, but is 
>fundamentally different. Once it is seen to be good, others will take it up.

Full agreement. Except that "computer communications" have probably 
delivered the most they can deliver. We have curbed "human relations" 
through the "computer communications" channel. This is what is to be 
corrected. So "human relations" take the lead and we can work on 
"computer cooperated human relations". I use to say that the problem 
is to know who is the master and who is the slave. RFC 3935 says that 
the master is the IETF which is to "influence the way people design, 
use, and manage the Internet". The reason why is to protect stability 
("don't fix what ai'nt broke"), what leads to status quo [and market 
share protection] and maintenance. Not to innovation.

>Most everyone can see reality, only a few people can see visions 
>with as much clarity as they see reality.

Correct. We have to start from what we have.

- the digital ecosystem
- the IPv4 half-internationalised Internet, and other communications 
digitalised or digitalising services
- the work on metadata by JTC1
- the list of the services we want to support from no-spam mail to 
TV, through telephone, mobiles, web, domotic, etc.
- the need of an economical model
- the impossibility to change the world in less than 10 years.
- 7 billions of possible users and a ten times more computers, 
appliances, cars, washing machines, etc.

IMHO the only way to proceed is to be user centric and to start from 
the users systems (SNHN - smart small standalone network/home 
network). What Microsoft/Linux failed to understand up to now. But 
... Then to allocate each user a reasonable IPv6 address set (using 
the ITU /3 ? - along the telephone scheme?) At this time not for 
routing but for identification and architecture debugging purpose. 
Then to allocate each user its own DNS root. Not to create alt-roots, 
but to push their externets (external network look-alike) to federate 
in an adequate ways. Then to help organising user relational spaces 
matching their needs with the ecology of the digital ecosystem. Until 
this leads to various relational continuities people will be happy with.

This is what I qualified as user/usage centric when I joined this 
list. I do not think that without a serious global model of the 
digital ecosystem it is possible to continue working on global 
solutions. But one can document individual solutions so they globally 
deploy in the real existing world. And in working better, better 
understand the digital ecosystem model we will want to better adapt to.

jfc

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 18:31:08 -0800

> fundamentally different. Once it is seen to be good, others will

Well, when we had this very same interaction about 5 years ago, I
suggested that (1) whatever it is, it will run on top of IP to start
with, and (2) the key is to figure out how to move features from
whatever it is down into the internet layer *incrementally*.  I still
think this is a good idea.  

swb

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:31:25 -0800

>     > years. .. The constant patching is doing far more harm than good.
...
> I agree wholeheartedly with all this. However...
...
> field bigger" was *NOT* the solution), 

On reading through the thread, I think there is a mixture of some interesting 
observations and interesting conclusions.  "Interesting" does not imply right or 
wrong... Some of each seems to me to be off the mark and others probably are on 
the mark.

The IETF has mostly been extremely useful at developing refinements and getting 
large-scale adoption.

The original work that it refines almost always comes from outside the IETF.

The benefit of the IETF has been to develop a wider circle of support, possibly 
to ensure that the specification serves a broader audience, and frequently to 
preserve an installed base. (This last point is often asserted as a premature 
goal, but its application in legitimate situations has been massively beneficial.)

The original task for IPv6 was to solve an address space problem.  Had the IPv6 
effort restricted itself to that task, it would have been a successful effort.

It would have been simple and quick.  Transition to it would have been nicely 
painless.  Instead the requirements list got bloated and turned into a 
pseudo-architecture-change project.

We are 12 years down the road (pun intended, for those who get it).  The world 
has changed in interesting ways and more architects understand more issues better.

It is entirely reasonable to envision creating a set of technologies that could 
actually replace much or all of the current Internet infrastructure.  In all 
likelihood, the replacement will demonstrate huge amount of DNA in common with 
the existing Internet technologies, but it is almost certainly better to think 
in terms of a new species.  (On the other hand, the more shared DNA, the easier 
a transition is likely to be.)

That effort MUST be done by a relatively small, relatively cohesive, and 
entirely independent team that produces a prototype, prior to involving the 
IETF.  Possibly actually going much, much farther down the development and 
deployment path before doing anything that looks like an IETF working group.

This is not meant as a criticism of the IETF but rather an acknowledgment that 
the skillset of IETF working groups has little overlap with the goal of creating 
a new architecture.

I should comment that my double use of "relatively", above, does not mean a 
group filled with singing and hugging.  Actually, a group that debates and 
shouts is probably better, to ensure that ideas are subjected to deep 
evaluation-by-challenge.

But of course, what I really mean is that all participants buy into the same 
basic goals and probably buy into the same basic approach (although this latter 
is fuzzy to me.)

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net