Subject: [weirds] lessons learned

From: Bob Bruen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:19:02 -0400 (EDT)

Hi,

This is been a learning experience for me. I have been around for a long time and it appears I missed 
some important changes. I was working under the old IETF model, where if you showed up, you were part of 
the process. The important thing was to get it right. It was a thoughtful time.

Now, it seems that the agenda of special interest groups run the process. I am not part of "the 
community" because I am considered a "data consumer" and in this case the "data providers" are running 
the show. The agenda has been set. Now it just gets implemented.

             --bob

---

From: Alan Maitland <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:31:36 -0600

Dr. Bruen,

Speaking also as a "data consumer" (in Mr. Brunner-William's perhaps 
gruff, if not regrettable parlance) on this list, I'm here to suggest to 
you that your original premise may simply not be right for the times.

Your original list post:
---
IMHO, there should not be a different service depending on credentials.

The original whois presented all the available data, then the amount was 
cut back. It should be like the original, so that all the data is 
available to anyone.
---

The problem with this thinking is that there may well be data that is 
arguably just inappropriate to share with "the community" for a variety 
of reasons.  Planning for such a design viewpoint as varied data feeds 
seems not at all inappropriate for a contemporary standards body list.

For example, perhaps there is some data that might make its way into the 
system that is used by various registries who may or may not wish or be 
able to share the data with the general consumer population, while 
making sense or being legally allowed to share between registries.  A 
reason it might not make sense to generally provide the data could 
certainly relate to matters involving legal or law enforcement matters.

You might not like it, but the legal systems and laws of different 
nations can make the need for such things as data selectivity a 
requirement in certain nations, so planning to succeed by allowing for 
such requirements will logically include as many nations as possible and 
thus assist in assuring a maximized adoption rate for any standard du jour.

As you have been around for a long time, you understand that the 
Internet has changed radically in the last 20 years.  The days of a 
tightly knit community with the admirable intent to "do the right thing" 
has, perhaps sadly, evolved.  Pretty much the rest of the known universe 
has now joined with online and as such, increased numbers of less savory 
(though quite creative) types are now part of the package.  This reality 
causes the way many would like things to evolve to also change to 
accommodate the Internet's new normal.

Because of the size and dependance on the Internet, "getting it right" 
the first time is even more critical than ever.  I would argue that the 
thoughtfulness you mentioned below needs to be even greater today than 
in the earlier days because of the significantly increased complexity 
caused by both technical and non-technical considerations.

Another thought... As you probably have observed, the bad guys often 
enough actually depend upon total openness of the Internet and sometimes 
that makes the total openness model somewhat inappropriate.

I don't attend the various (name your acronym) meetings, though I do 
observe and contribute where I can to some online lists that I either 
find of interest or have a need to observe for company business reasons. 
  I too have been around a while and think that things regarding the 
ways in which standards evolve overall have really not changed that much 
(though by necessity, the process has become a bit more formalized).

I have also observed that folks involved in standard's bodies do indeed 
continue to tend to respond fairly well to inputs from nearly anyone, 
especially so, those inputs which are presented in a clear and concise 
manner.

So, given what you have shared of your lessons learned, of course you 
and I are both part of the broader Internet community.  That said 
however, while the registry communities (both domain name and IP) are 
willing to accept inputs from either of us, neither of us are part of 
that subset community per se in any other capacity than that of a 
consumer.  That is not a bad thing, it is just a reality.  Personally, I 
appreciate that the process itself continues to be so entirely open to 
the public and that feedback continues to be taken by the registry 
community from anyone as a part of the process.

Respectfully,

Alan Maitland

On 6/13/2012 7:19 AM, Bob Bruen wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is been a learning experience for me. I have been around for a long
> time and it appears I missed some important changes. I was working under
> the old IETF model, where if you showed up, you were part of the
> process. The important thing was to get it right. It was a thoughtful time.
>
> Now, it seems that the agenda of special interest groups run the
> process. I am not part of "the community" because I am considered a
> "data consumer" and in this case the "data providers" are running the
> show. The agenda has been set. Now it just gets implemented.
>
> --bob
> _______________________________________________
> weirds mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/weirds
>
>

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Jun 2012 15:58:41 -0000

> show. ...

I'm sorry, but this totally misunderstands what standards are and what
they can do.  All an IETF standard can do is tell people how to
interoperate if they are already inclined to do so.  WEIRDS can say
here's how a client can send a query that a server will understand,
and here's how a server can send a response that a client can parse.
That's it.

Much though I would like to say the servers MUST answer all queries
without rate limiting and MUST NOT respond with redacted versions of
cruddy data, that's not how it works.  Were we to say that, either the
servers would ignore those parts and rate limit and redact anyway,
most likely in ways that made it impossible for clients to tell what's
going on, or else would say that since WEIRDS doesn't let us follow
our policies, we can't use WEIRDS.

Having written a WHOIS scraper that is over 2700 lines and still
growing, I'm acutely aware of how badly WHOIS works.  A mechanically
queryable version of what we have now, while still far from ideal,
would be a considerable improvement.

There are other places to have policy arguments.  This isn't one.

R's,
John

---

From: Bob Bruen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:26:50 -0400 (EDT)

Hi John,

The show I meant was the writing of the RFC. I know that one does not have 
to follow standards, although generally industries do. Happily, The IETF 
has had a significant impact over the decades on how things work.

And I would never question what you know or what you are aware of :)

            --bob

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
http://knujon.org
http://coldrain.net/bruen
+1.802.579.6288

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:28:44 -0700

Hi Bob,
At 06:19 13-06-2012, Bob Bruen wrote:
>"data consumer" and in this case the "data providers" are running 

According to the relevant BCPs I am an IETF participant as anyone 
else in this working group.  I cannot stop special interest groups 
from considering me as X, Y or Z.  I have read the working group 
charter as it explains the scope of the work to be performed.  I have 
read that the Working Group Chairs see to the process details in a 
working group.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:51:14 -0700

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 6:19 AM, Bob Bruen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the old IETF model, where if you showed up, you were part of the process.
> The important thing was to get it right. It was a thoughtful time.
>
> Now, it seems that the agenda of special interest groups run the process.
> I am not part of "the community" because I am considered a "data consumer"
> and in this case the "data providers" are running the show. The agenda has
> been set. Now it just gets implemented.
>
>
Speaking as a co-chair (and I imagine Olaf agrees, though I have not
checked with him about this reply), I fully expect this working group to be
equally considerate of the concerns of both producers and consumers in this
work.

Speaking as a participant, I consider myself a data consumer, and so what I
contribute to this group will come primarily from that perspective.

I'm behind on recent threads, but I'm a little alarmed that your recent
experience has led you to the conclusion you gave above.  It's certainly
not where I want this group to be.

-MSK

---

From: Olaf Kolkman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:25:00 +0200

On Jun 14, 2012, at 7:51 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

> 
> Speaking as a co-chair (and I imagine Olaf agrees, though I have not checked with him about this reply), I fully expect this working group to be equally considerate of the concerns of both producers and consumers in this work.

Olaf agrees... with the qualifier: 'as long those concerns are not about choosing a particular policy.'

I hope we can all keep the following principle in mind:

"Design for variation in outcome, so that the outcome can be different in different places, and the tussle takes place within the design, not by distorting or violating it. Do not design so as to dictate the outcome. Rigid designs will be broken; designs that permit variation will flex under pressure and survive."

(From "Tussle in Cyberspace: Defining Tomorrow’s Internet", Clarke et al, http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spr06/cos592/bib/tussle-p347-clark.pdf)

NLnet
Labs
Olaf M. Kolkman

www.NLnetLabs.nl
[email-masked]

Science Park 400, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands