On 8 Nov 2024, at 23:20, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 8 Nov 2024, at 16:13, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
If the goal is to favor running code over mere pontification, I think
that's a solid proposal...
That it certainly true. But I think we do want code that is not just
running, but is also usable at scale. Maybe that's what's not clear:
It doesn't mean that only code made by and for large scale
environments will be favored; it's that if you've got an idea, it will
win the day if you also have some code and someone can actually test
it at scale. If you don't have code, or if the code can't work at
scale, and someone else has code that actually works at scale, their
proposal will be favored.
...and doesn't even need to be in the WG charter since I think it's
in the IETF's charter.
RFC 3935 only says:
Rough consensus and running code - We make standards based on the
combined engineering judgement of our participants and our real-
world experience in implementing and deploying our
specifications.
While that gets close, it's not terribly strong, and we certainly know
WGs in which this doesn't happen. That's why we had the inclination to
be explicit in order to set expectations, and to give the chair
something specific to point at in the charter. If there's a different
way to say it better, I for one think it would be better to have it in
there rather than for it to be implicit.
Scalability of the protocols we develop is an important consideration,
and perhaps something that should be mentioned in the charter (although
I hope it would be understood by anyone). But the language in the
charter, specifically “The working group will favor designs that are
tested at scale and may dismiss those that are not”, goes well beyond
that. Only a small number of large providers can *test* at scale, and
this language gives them effectively veto authority to decide not to
test something.
Email, as a service, has to serve both large providers and small. It’s
important that the charter consider the needs of small providers as well
as the large ones. This is a theoretical concern at this point, and I
hope we don’t end up in a situation where the working group considers
only solutions that work disproportionately well for large providers.
I’m not assuming bad faith in the part of anyone, but suggest that the
charter acknowledge that scalability is important and stop there.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org