The Devil is in the Deployment
draft-hallambaker-iab-deployment-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2019-05-03
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                    P. Hallam-Baker
Internet-Draft                                               May 3, 2019
Intended status: Informational
Expires: November 4, 2019

                     The Devil is in the Deployment
                  draft-hallambaker-iab-deployment-00

Abstract

   The defining feature of a standard is that it be widely, preferably
   ubiquitously used.  The deployment strategies of previous protocol
   standardization efforts are compared and best practice suggested for
   application and infrastructure protocol deployment strategies are
   described.  Recommendations for enabling deployment of specific
   protocols and for future IETF working practices are made.

   This draft is a generalization of the principles used to develop the
   deployment strategy for the Mathematical Mesh.  Many documents
   describing deployment considerations have been developed during the
   development of the Mesh and these have motivated many changes to the
   design during the course of development.

   The Mesh is consciously and deliberately modeled on the same
   strategies that succeeded in the Web. Some of these strategies are
   well known:

   Other parts of the Web strategy have not been widely discussed.  This
   paper presents some parts of the strategy most relevant to the IAB
   workshop program.

   This document is also available online at
   http://mathmesh.com/Documents/draft-hallambaker-iab-deployment.html
   [1] .

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any

Hallam-Baker            Expires November 4, 2019                [Page 1]
Internet-Draft               PHB Deployment                     May 2019

   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on November 4, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Lessons from History  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     1.1.  The World Wide Web  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.2.  IPv6  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.2.1.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     1.3.  DNSSEC and DANE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       1.3.1.  DANE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       1.3.2.  DPRIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   2.  Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.1.  Purpose of the IETF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     2.2.  Design for Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     2.3.  Identify Stakeholders and Gatekeepers . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.4.  Realistic Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     2.5.  Eliminate Deployment Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     2.6.  Recognize Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     3.1.  URIs  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14

1.  Lessons from History

   When the Internet was first being developed, the number of hosts was
   zero and the user community was highly motivated to adopt new
   technologies because they were developing them.  Today the Internet
   has four billion users and forty years of legacy infrastructure.  If
   we are going to improve our record of deploying new developments we
   must look past the earliest pioneering days and focus on deployment

Hallam-Baker            Expires November 4, 2019                [Page 2]
Internet-Draft               PHB Deployment                     May 2019

   of technologies developed since the Internet had grown in size to the
   point where deployment was a primary design constraint.

   If we are going to succeed in being relevant, we must design for
Show full document text