[discuss] On Addresses and Identifiers / proceeding properly

[John Curran]

On Mar 5, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Seth Johnson <seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Specification of computer Internetworking protocols include delineation
>> of syntax for parameter fields.  In order to achieve interoperability,
>> there must be some also be common expectations on the semantics of the
>> possible  values in those fields.  When the interoperability desired
>> is of global scope (i.e. the Internet) then the shared expectations of
>> parameter values and meanings must also be global in scope.  These
>> mappings of values and their associated meaning are maintained in a
>> protocol parameter registry.
> 
> Your version of interoperability interprets protocols as analogues for
> legal policy, which is an unnecessary conceit.

Seth - Can you explain some more about this?  I'm having trouble figuring
out how you reached that conclusion, since I did not indicate any use of
traditional law/government/use of force in my language.  The point is 
simply that interoperability is predicated on shared semantics for a 
given identifier value.

> Interoperability is
> something we already have.  It's a matter of the flexibility of the
> platform, whereas one makes interoperability look like it's a matter
> of common rules imposed on the platform when one treats conventions as
> a analogue for policy.

If you mean "policy" being "legal policy" or "public policy", then that
is a problem.  I mean policy being registry policy or "IANA policy" as 
defined in RFC5226 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5226>, i.e. - 

  "In order for IANA to manage a given namespace prudently, it needs
   guidelines describing the conditions under which new values can be
   assigned or when modifications to existing values can be made.  If
   IANA is expected to play a role in the management of a namespace,
   IANA must be given clear and concise instructions describing that
   role.  This document discusses issues that should be considered in
   formulating a policy for assigning values to a namespace and provides
   guidelines for authors on the specific text that must be included in
   documents that place demands on IANA."

> This is the specific thing that policies associated with identifiers
> need to be guarded against becoming.

What is the "specific thing" to which you refer?

> ...
> I think I saw these principles from you before.  They seem roughly
> mostly harmless, except your notion of interoperability leads in the
> wrong direction, so I have an askance gaze on them.

Please explain.

> It isn't just
> common rules across networks (especially not there); it's a basic
> foundation that lets people do applications by consensus, readily and
> voluntarily.  We should never offer the notion of interoperability as
> a basis for rationalizing policy -- policy should defend its goals and
> purposes against its impact on the platform.

I believe that you are referring to "public policy" in the above 
rather than "IANA policy", if that's the case, I agree with you.
In fact, it might be best if _public policy_ requirements ended 
up in registry policy because they are already widely-accepted 
_public policy_ standards and norms, not the other way around...

/John

Disclaimer: My view alone.