Subject: [paws] paws charter

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 00:15:46 -0400

Hi,

I raised some issues about the charter text, and they do not seem to
have been addressed in the latest proposed revision.

1) The work proposed is related to a database of non-IETF technologies
(spectrum/channels,etc.). That raises the question of why IETF is the
appropriate place to develop this solution. The answer is apparently
that interoperability is important, and the IETF has already developed
application-layer database protocols and relevant security and
transport protocols that have been widely deployed in an interoperable
manner. To justify this work as an IETF-appropriate effort, I believe
it is important to try to reuse existing IETF protocols BEFORE
designing any new IETF protocols for the PAWS-specific purpose.

The current charter prominently states the WG will **standardize a
protocol ... which includes a location sensitive database discovery
mechanism and security for the protocol, and application services."
This definitely sounds to me like a plan to develop a NEW protocol,
designed for this special purpose rather than reusing existing
protocols. As an addendum, the charter later on says " The working
group will prefer to use existing IETF technologies and privacy
mechanisms where possible." This placement makes reuse of existing
standards sound like an afterthought, only included here because the
IESG insisted on it. I do not think the charter text as written makes
the reuse of existing IETF standards seem preferred over developing a
brand new protocol.

Some have asked why this charter, but not others, have this
requirement. I point you to the proposed charter for CDNI for an
example of another charter with similar text: 
"The working group will only define solutions for aspects of the CDN
Interconnection problem space that require direct communication or
interoperation between CDNs.
In particular, the WG will not define:
- New session, transport or network protocols.
- New protocols for delivering content from a CDN to an End User/User
Agent.
- New protocols for ingestion of content or metadata between a CSP and
a CDN.
- New protocols for acquiring content across CDNs.
- Protocols and algorithms for intra-CDN operations.
- Support for Transparent Caching across CDNs.
- New applications consuming CDNI logs.
- Digital Right Management (DRM) mechanisms.

The CDNI WG will work with other IETF WGs to assess, and where
appropriate, leverage protocols developed by those WGs, in order to
realize the CDNI requirements and CDNI interfaces. For example, the WG
may assess the suitability of the ALTO protocol as a protocol to
enable downstream CDNs to exchange information which may aid an
upstream CDN with making CDNI request routing decisions. The CDNI WG
will also coordinate with relevant groups outside the IETF such as
UltraViolet. ... It is expected that the CDNI interfaces will be
realized using existing IETF protocols for transport and message
exchange, and using existing object notation grammars/languages for
the definition of CDNI objects and semantics. In the event that
protocol extensions or new protocols are deemed necessary by the WG,
the WG will recharter."

I also point to the DECADE WG charter: "- An architecture document ...
will identify DECADE's
relationship with existing IETF protocols. Existing protocols will be
used wherever possible and appropriate to support DECADE's
requirements."

2) I raised concerns with the following text: 
"The Working Group will set up and maintain appropriate contact and
liaison with other relevant standards bodies and groups, including
IEEE
802.11af and IEEE 802.22 to begin with."
Liasion relationships are the responsibility of the IAB. They make
strategic decisions about which SDOs the IETF should, or should not,
establish formal liaison relationships with. As per
http://www.iab.org/liaisons/index.html:
"It should be noted that the number of formal liaison relationships is
somewhat small, as the best way for most organizations to work with
the IETF is to do so through IETF working groups. The primary contact
regarding the establishment of a new liaison relationship is the IAB."

While the IAB may choose to delegate some of the contact work to
specific WGs, I believe it is inappropriate to include in a WG's
charter the authority to set up and maintain liasion relationships
with other SDOs of the WG's choosing. The WG can request that the IAB
setup and maintain liaison relationships with other SDOs. I think the
charter text would be much better if it simply stated that "The WG
will also coordinate with relevant groups outside the IETF such as
802.11af and IEEE 802.22" rather than stating it will "setup and
maintain liaisons" with other standards bodies.

David Harrington
Director, IETF Transport Area
[email-masked] (preferred for ietf)
[email-masked]
+1 603 828 1401 (cell)

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:20:27 +0200

Hi, 

I agree with both comments from David. 

For the first point I suggest the following language: 

s/The working group will prefer to use existing IETF technologies and
privacy mechanisms where possible./The working group will re-use
existing IETF protocols, privacy mechanisms and other technologies
wherever they meet the requirements./

For the second point I support the wording as suggested by David.

Regards,

Dan 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of David Harrington
> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 7:16 AM
> To: 'The IESG'; [email-masked]
> Subject: [paws] paws charter
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I raised some issues about the charter text, and they do not 
> seem to have been addressed in the latest proposed revision.
> 
> 1) The work proposed is related to a database of non-IETF 
> technologies (spectrum/channels,etc.). That raises the 
> question of why IETF is the appropriate place to develop this 
> solution. The answer is apparently that interoperability is 
> important, and the IETF has already developed 
> application-layer database protocols and relevant security 
> and transport protocols that have been widely deployed in an 
> interoperable manner. To justify this work as an 
> IETF-appropriate effort, I believe it is important to try to 
> reuse existing IETF protocols BEFORE designing any new IETF 
> protocols for the PAWS-specific purpose.
> 
> The current charter prominently states the WG will 
> **standardize a protocol ... which includes a location 
> sensitive database discovery mechanism and security for the 
> protocol, and application services."
> This definitely sounds to me like a plan to develop a NEW 
> protocol, designed for this special purpose rather than 
> reusing existing protocols. As an addendum, the charter later 
> on says " The working group will prefer to use existing IETF 
> technologies and privacy mechanisms where possible." This 
> placement makes reuse of existing standards sound like an 
> afterthought, only included here because the IESG insisted on 
> it. I do not think the charter text as written makes the 
> reuse of existing IETF standards seem preferred over 
> developing a brand new protocol.
> 
> requirement. I point you to the proposed charter for CDNI for 
> an example of another charter with similar text: 
> "The working group will only define solutions for aspects of 
> the CDN Interconnection problem space that require direct 
> communication or interoperation between CDNs.
> - New protocols for delivering content from a CDN to an End 
> User/User Agent.
> - New protocols for ingestion of content or metadata between 
> a CSP and a CDN.
> The CDNI WG will work with other IETF WGs to assess, and 
> where appropriate, leverage protocols developed by those WGs, 
> in order to realize the CDNI requirements and CDNI 
> interfaces. For example, the WG may assess the suitability of 
> the ALTO protocol as a protocol to enable downstream CDNs to 
> exchange information which may aid an upstream CDN with 
> making CDNI request routing decisions. The CDNI WG will also 
> coordinate with relevant groups outside the IETF such as 
> UltraViolet. ... It is expected that the CDNI interfaces will 
> be realized using existing IETF protocols for transport and 
> message exchange, and using existing object notation 
> grammars/languages for the definition of CDNI objects and 
> semantics. In the event that protocol extensions or new 
> protocols are deemed necessary by the WG, the WG will recharter."
> 
> relationship with existing IETF protocols. Existing protocols 
> will be used wherever possible and appropriate to support 
> DECADE's requirements."
> 
> "The Working Group will set up and maintain appropriate 
> contact and liaison with other relevant standards bodies and 
> groups, including IEEE 802.11af and IEEE 802.22 to begin with."
> Liasion relationships are the responsibility of the IAB. They 
> make strategic decisions about which SDOs the IETF should, or 
> should not, establish formal liaison relationships with. As per
> "It should be noted that the number of formal liaison 
> relationships is somewhat small, as the best way for most 
> organizations to work with the IETF is to do so through IETF 
> working groups. The primary contact regarding the 
> establishment of a new liaison relationship is the IAB."
> 
> While the IAB may choose to delegate some of the contact work 
> to specific WGs, I believe it is inappropriate to include in 
> a WG's charter the authority to set up and maintain liasion 
> relationships with other SDOs of the WG's choosing. The WG 
> can request that the IAB setup and maintain liaison 
> relationships with other SDOs. I think the charter text would 
> be much better if it simply stated that "The WG will also 
> coordinate with relevant groups outside the IETF such as 
> 802.11af and IEEE 802.22" rather than stating it will "setup 
> and maintain liaisons" with other standards bodies.
> 
> 
> David Harrington
> _______________________________________________
> paws mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
>

---

From: "Rosen, Brian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:38:34 -0400

In my strictly personal opinion, the query protocol will be a simple HTTP/XML webservice.

The database discovery mechanism may make use of LoST, but that may not work out so well, because there is, so far, only a need to locate to a country, and not a region within a country, and we have more than one parameter for search, not just location.  As a long time ecrit participant, I'm biased to use LoST if it works for us.

We'll clearly reuse IETF security mechanisms.

But we don't need to say any of that, because we have to make sure we get a complete view of requirements before we choose solutions.

<tirade>You seem to need IETF boilerplate.  EVERY work group should consider and prefer to use existing solutions. and not reinvent wheels.  We should write text that says that and put it in every charter.  Clearly, this work is no different in any way from 99% of work group charters in that regard, and is nothing at all like CDNI, where some assumptions can be made at the outset.  We have no such assumptions.  We'll create the requirements, and see if we can match them to existing solutions.  I strongly suggest the IESG develop this boilerplate so the next group doesn't have to reinvent it.</tirade>

In the mean time, I am fine with using your language suggestion.

I have no problem with David's proposed change in the IEEE liaison language.  The intention was to use the existing process.  We just wanted to note which groups we would need to use that process for.

Brian

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 16:48:19 +0300

Brian, Dan, 

I wonder whether we have already started designing the protocol during the charter process. 
I don't think that's the best way to spend our time. 

I am also not overly concerned that an IETF working group would not re-use IETF protocols. In general we like our protocols and reuse them. It is fine to say that we care about privacy, security, etc. aren't we doing that anyway regardless whether the charter text says that. 
I would only add something if some readers unfamiliar with the IETF work (and overall process) find the page and need to be aware of an important aspect of this work. 

Ciao
Hannes

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 10:16:42 -0400

I suggest that there is a straightforward way to handle this concern.  I suggest:

The WG will coordinate with other standards bodies that are expected to make use of PAWS, including IEEE 802.11af and IEEE 802.22.  Where liaison relationships are in place, the liaison managers will interface between the groups.

Russ

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 19:14:35 +0000

David,

The issues that you had raised previously were IMO irrelevant for the most
part.
You did not provide valid reasoning behind your statements or any
explanation either to my earlier email requesting for the same.

Further comments inline:

>designing any new IETF protocols for the PAWS-specific purpose.

The question as to why the IETF is the right place to do this work has
been discussed at length and at the BoF.
There was strong consensus regarding the same. Yet you continue to
question this aspect.
Reuse of existing protocols has also been mentioned as a possibility. The
people involved in the BoF recognize it.
Mandating that the PAWS protocol MUST reuse existing IETF protocols before
we have had a chance to even get into the design of the protocol seems
premature and an immature suggestion.

>the reuse of existing IETF standards seem preferred over developing a

And that is by intent and design because we really do not have the
visibility whether an existing protocol (IETF) will meet the requirements
for PAWS.

>regarding the establishment of a new liaison relationship is the IAB."

Right. We understand the process for establishing liaisons. So I don¹t
know what is your issue here as far as liaisons are concerned. The
question about liaisons was also discussed at the BoF.
While IEEE 802 was noted as one SDO with which we should establish a
liaison, it was also mentioned that liaisons could be established with
other bodies as well in the future that are relevant w.r.t the WS
technology.

The IESG IMO appears to have an opinion that overrides the community
consensus in this case and acting in an authoritarian way that does not
suit the ethos/taos of the IETF.

-Raj