Subject: Re: complex extensions attacking IETF protocols

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 98 22:15:44 JST

Chris;

> I was recently pointed to a web page which describes strategies for a
> commercial company to compete with Open Source Software*.  That page
> discusses one issue which I believe is of grave import for the IETF.
> 
> The gist of the IETF-related observation is that if complex or confusing
> extensions are added to simple protocol standards and used by commercial
> clients it can "de-commodotize" those simple protocols by making it very
> hard to implement a server which fully interoperates with client features. 
> This could give a large commercial organization a competitive advantage.

You are absulutely right, here. WGs chaired by Cisco and/or IBM people
should give good examples. BTW, I think you know who is chairing
IESG/IETF.

Microsoft, however, haven't been so sucessful not yet except in
the application area.

> The IETF traditions of simple protocols, interoperability and design for
> technical excellence rather than personal/company benefit have resulted in
> keeping implementation barriers for a new service reasonably low. But
> such a principle has never been a formal part of IETF tradition.

You are absolutely wrong, here.

The implementations and interoperability them is already a formal
barrier to make something draft standard.

However, it is not working to make protocols simple, not becasue
the barrier is ignored, but because too much money and effort is
spent to implement on arbitrary any complex protocols.

> I believe
> we should add "keep implementation barriers for a new service low" as a
> tradition on-par with the others in the IETF.  An attack on this principle
> could undermine the other related IETF principles over time. 

It does not stop large companies develop ten independent implementations
(how can you say implementaion barriers high, then?) only to endorse
protocols effectively controled by the companies.

> I also believe IETF participants should be alert to _individuals_ in the
> IETF who are deliberately increasing the complexity of IETF protocols
> contrary to the best technical design.
> 
> I found one unsubstantiated allegation on that web page about an IETF
> protocol currently in last call quite disturbing: 
> 
>     HTTP-DAV. DAV is complex and the protocol spec provides an infinite
>     level of implementation complexity for various applications (e.g. the
>     design for XXXXXXX over DAV is good but certainly not the single
>     obvious design).  Apache will be hard pressed to pick and choose the
>     correct first areas of DAV to implement.**
> 
> As webDAV is likely scheduled for IESG debate on November 6th, I may not
> have time to determine the validity of that allegation myself and make a
> last call comment.  But I hope others might have the time to review it and
> make a last call comment based on a solid technical evaluation. 

FYI, the first utterly unnecessarily complex (still essentially flawed)
application area protocol is MIME.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 98 22:15:44 JST

Chris;

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:02:54 -0500

>should give good examples. BTW, I think you know who is chairing

As one who has worked hard for good engineering and simplicity for the
benefit of the community no matter who my employer, I take this personally.

This accusation borders on libel if it has not stepped completely into that
realm.  Masataka Ohta, you should either retract it or make a formal,
documented complaint to the IAB, detailing specific misbehavior by every
Cisco or IBM employee who is serving or has served the IETF.

Your unwarranted, unthinking broad brush has earned you a place in my email
filters taking your messages straight to the trash where they belong.

People who make such unfounded accusations don't deserve a place even in
the most open of discussions.

	Bob

---

From: Bob Stewart <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 09:02:54 -0500

Bob

---

From: Karl Denninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:19:39 -0600

> the most open of discussions.

Someone (you, Bob) hasn't been around this industry very long.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger ([email-masked]) http://www.mcs.net/~karl
I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.

---

From: Karl Denninger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 08:19:39 -0600