Subject: [Int-area] About limited domains (2)

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:22:08 +1300

Quoting the minutes on draft-carpenter-limited-domains-04:

> RV: The hints that I'm hearing are that if you have well structured systems there are infinite ways to break the structure. If one allows people in the wild to
> do whatever they want, you get trends like this. It's not a trend you want to support.

Our point is not about people doing things in the wild; it's about people doing things inside a particular domain (a.k.a. environment). We (the IETF) can't stop that, but we can in theory standardise technology to define the domain and make it secure.

    Brian

---

From: Tom Herbert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:41:16 -0800

> Our point is not about people doing things in the wild; it's about people doing things inside a particular domain (a.k.a. environment). We (the IETF) can't stop that, but we can in theory standardi…

Hi Brian,

I don't think it's a question of trying to stop people from doing
whatever they want, I think it's more of a question of whether IETF
should be encouraging such behavior.

>From the draft:

"Nevertheless, because of the diversity of limited environments with
specific requirements that is now emerging, specific standards will
necessarily emerge."

I don't think the necessity that specific standards need to be defined
for limited domains has been established. For discussion, can you give
a specific example of a required protocol that would only work in a
limited domain, but would be incorrect if used in the Internet?

Tom

>
>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:31:33 +1300

> should be encouraging such behavior.

I don't think any encouragement is needed; it will happen anyway. I think
we're making a different argument: How to ensure that private or limited
scope deployments are properly confined and do not cause problems outside
their scope.

> limited domain, but would be incorrect if used in the Internet?

Well, we have some to hand: any diffserv PHB is an example, unless
inter-ISP agreements are in place at every ISP-ISP boundary on the
path. Specifically consider the codepoint properly defined as CS1
(class selector 1, the same as legacy TOS precedence 1), that has been
widely used for the Lower Effort per-hop behaviour instead. That
simply doesn't work properly across domain boundaries if the two
domains use different interpretations of the same codepoint (hence
draft-ietf-tsvwg-le-phb). 

As I understand DETNET, that will be similar. I think there
are other cases mentioned in the draft too.

But you're right in the sense that it really doesn't affect our
premise whether the local protocol (or extension, or codepoint)
is an IETF standard, an "XYZ Forum" standard, or simply an
in-house development. If it needs to be confined to a given domain,
there needs to be a mechanism for doing so.

   Brian