The need for smaller protocol specifications

Charlie Perkins charliep at
Tue Jun 10 08:15:54 CEST 2003

Hello Randy and Harald,

If my characterization of the problem was too general,
perhaps you can help to refine it.  If you have examples
showing how my characterization could be used the
wrong way, please help by discussing your examples.

If you think that my example of key distribution seemed
like a perfectly legitimate exercise of IESG power, then
I don't think we're likely to come to agreement, and I would
view your opinion as leaning towards requiring specification
for entire systems as opposed to mere protocols.

Do you prefer system specifications or protocol specifications?

Here would be one possible formulation for what I see as
a major problem (perhaps _the_ major problem!):

-- The IESG has tended to require protocol specifications that
    specify entire systems, instead of simple component protocols.
    This limits the applicability of the component protocols to
    work only in the particular larger system, complicates the
    implementation of the component protocols, and delays the
    publication of the component protocols.

Charlie P.

PS. I do not believe that IP would pass IESG review today.
      Think of all the attacks based on routability!

Randy Bush wrote:

>>2.  Charlie gives below I think accurate description at a minimum a
>>problem we face. Again no IESG response here.
>a formal iesg response would take two years as it would have to pass
>iab and isoc review :-)
>and, by now you will have seen a number of responses.  folk are just
>busy.  e.g., i was on a plane over the pacific.  patience, guy.
>i think harald said it well, and i will paraphrase.  yes, protocols
>often get far too complex.  but the way charlie phrases the issue
>could much more easily be used for things i would not support than
>for things i would.

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list