Subject: [Sidrops] draft-sidrops-bruijnzeels-deprecate-rsync

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:54:31 -0700

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sidrops-bruijnzeels-deprecate-rsync/

quite willing to discuss this and am still willing to co-author if you
wish.  but i am pretty firm about not breaking the running internet.

to quote myself from last year

    great to get the draft out there.  wish it was more specific about
    how this is operationally accomplished.  e.g. from the discussion i
    was trying to have with you:

    0 - publishers publish rcynic and some rrdp.  rps use rcynic and some
	use rrdp
    1 - all publishers offer both.
    2 - then you can ask all rps to move to rrdp and prefer it
    3 - you can see, at the publishers, when no rcynic requests come
    4 - you can turn off rcynic at the publishers
    5 - you can remove rcynic from the rps

whether we like it or not, there are a significan number of rcynic-only
relying parties out there.  we need to help and encourage the
transition.  we MAY NOT break the running internet.

there

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:15:59 -0700

look, no one likes rcynic.  but it has carried us for a decade now, so i
treat it with respect.  it will take us another decade to completely get
rid of it.  remember, it took me eight years to get a constant changed
from 4k to 16k (RFC 8654).  one of the things the pandemic should be
teaching us is patience.

we are stewards of the internet.  we do not intentionally break it.  we
do that enough accidentally.  luckily, we can turn preventing the latter
into a career :).

so let us figure out the safe path to move forward, document it, and
start moving down it.  but the goal is some time away.  and likely, by
the time it is close, we will be discussing how to get rid of RRDP.

randy

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 11:11:08 +0200

Hi,

> On 21 Apr 2020, at 04:15, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

For sure. And for the record: I am a big fan of rsync in other contexts. Also it was a useful start. Still, I want to move on for reasons I won't repeat here unless pushed :)

> the time it is close, we will be discussing how to get rid of RRDP.

Fully agree.

At the moment the document is still very open about time lines and what can happen first. This was done this way because at the time it was not clear to me whether we could get CA (and Repository Server) operators to implement RRDP soon 'enough', and I did not want this to be a reason for RP implementers not to start supporting RRDP.

As it stands today I believe that Lacnic is the only major repository which does not support RRDP yet, and everyone else either supports or is running software which is capable. I don't believe that Lacnic is opposed, but I believe we should also be reasonable in our expectations especially given the pandemic that makes life hard across the globe.

So, in short I am quite open to a more clear plan where we ask all repositories to support first, then ask / demand RPs to prefer RRDP, and eventually - after measurements - make rsync optional and/or deprecate it completely.

I will reply to you (Randy) in person to see if we can revise the draft in time for Monday's meeting.

Tim

> 
> randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sidrops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidrops

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:07:12 +0200

Hi,

> On 20 Apr 2020, at 20:54, Randy Bush <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

I agree with your approach, now that it's really only Lacnic who still need to do work on this. They have told me *informally* that they think it can be done this year, but that was before covid. Still, the will is there and it should not be show stopper.

Shall I try to spin a new version with these changes and send it to both of you by Thursday? Do you both want to co-author?

Thanks
Tim

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 04:17:44 -0700

> As it stands today I believe that Lacnic is the only major repository
> which does not support RRDP yet, and everyone else either supports or
> is running software which is capable.

that is the publishing sw, which is a small set.  the long tail will be
getting all the varied rps to strongly prefer rrdp, and use rcynic iff
rrdp is not available.

> draft in time for Monday's meeting.

though i am also hacking on other documents, even one for sidrops, i
will make time to help.

randy

---

From: Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:26:18 +0200

> On 21 Apr 2020, at 13:07, Tim Bruijnzeels <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

My apologies lacnic, I did not mean to send this to all.

Still I hope there is no harm done here. I am sure that everybody understands that engineering resources need to be managed, especially now.