Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Thu, 24 March 2011 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B923A67DF for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z72ooGmNrjEM for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:46:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 674093A67D9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:46:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwl42 with SMTP id 42so10870619iwl.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=oEVCAPXpMwNUtRM6sp3E0WMhsdJEjVVlkwDiNc77p5o=; b=LX/wfS+BVdo0FJ5q4+TwWFEhH3xX06JLj3/vzN4HerePfmxT4NeuIvzxsIV35flJLF g9kIs7r+4bPpMRdB7SEm04qGxKrJ+F/cXc/hYSV32H3Qz9fxf3fleW2hZH6Q+16BNhgn 8u01d5bBWJrNQ4/miuamr4vX8OwPHE3Yp7kMI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=mLAQkrjFYtszyrfxMhOLfmZYdcdxcRt9bS29flDnWHsDzckjo0sHr2ed9Kt4FQCnaa yqgfHvyWgJY+4CgpbJC+JgJh82YsLUVOS0FYRwkVrD/OZwYjCAapV0chYiES4Sab2t+U rixc9R4pnw4jfGG8CtjalooRcVcDdhVmijR34=
Received: by 10.42.117.68 with SMTP id s4mr2824060icq.348.1300938496516; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:48:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.165.65 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4D8AB5FC.9050500@stpeter.im>
References: <4D87612E.3090900@dcrocker.net> <4D881C04.2080406@qualcomm.com> <AANLkTimd-K4knt6nQWbhuwvOEv8uUCqi=4bNuOk20VYP@mail.gmail.com> <4D8AB5FC.9050500@stpeter.im>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:45:32 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTimsFR1e53CqfTGKiq+Cbf9+CKJ6LqLn378cyUGf@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=485b397dd109f5a3f7049f32580d
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] IETF technical plenary: the end of application protocols
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 03:46:44 -0000

I hope we can have a real discussion in Prague, without too much
grandstanding.

See you all too soon.

Scott

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 23:09, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:

> On 3/22/11 7:41 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
> > Pete: Yes, amusing.  I want to digress on one thing you said ...
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 23:48, Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>
> wrote:
> >> There are two obvious drivers of this evolution: First and foremost is
> the
> >> continuing lack of end-to-end connectivity in the network. This is due
> to
> >> the presence of NATs and assorted firewall nonsense that makes
> non-tunneled
> >> applications harder and harder to deploy. But the second driving force
> is
> >> the more insidious one: economics. The economics of the Internet are
> >> currently being driven by big players consolidating the network, pushing
> as
> >> much as they can into servers so that they can control both the data and
> the
> >> user experience for applications on the Internet. This of course is not
> in
> >> the interest of end users, except insofar as the "big players" are end
> users
> >> with large economic interests. The more centralized the data becomes,
> the
> >> more dependent users are on the "big players", the less innovation in
> >> applications can take place, and the less stable the Internet is as a
> whole.
> >
> > I think the causality is turned around several times in these sentences.
> >
> > First, NATs did not force people into client-server mode.  If people
> > had had a strong desire for end-to-end transparency, we would have
> > more of it.  NATs started appearing and they didn't cut off anything
> > people saw as vital.  Some apps (e.g. FTP and Skype) adapted.  It is
> > now hard to preserve peer-to-peer, and get away from client-server,
> > partly because of NATs but mainly because the vast majority of people
> > find client-server to be convenient.  They like services.  If there
> > was more demand for transparency you would see more of it.
> >
> > Second, yes economics, and yes the big boys are pushing to control
> > more, but that doesn't mean it is not in the interest of end users.
> > They like services.
>
> Scott, I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say. The big
> services have become big in large measure because most people seem to
> prefer identifiable services. Perhaps it's the herd instinct or the
> human inability to hold too many things in mind at once or the
> simplicity of signing up for something and letting someone else handle
> the details. Whatever the reason, most people don't want to run their
> own services -- it's much easier to visit a website, and tell people
> that you're "on", a popular email or IM or blogging or microblogging or
> voice or video service than it is to install and maintain postfix or
> Prosody or WordPress or laconica or Asterisk or Yate on the server side
> plus Thunderbird or Pidgin or Jitsi (etc.) on the client side (let alone
> the whole stack of OS and DNS and databases and registered domains and
> certificates and all the rest).
>
> So yes, services are easy and popular with end users. As a result, the
> companies that offer those services often become large and even dominant
> on the 'net. At that point some of the dynamics that Pete mentioned come
> into play, but I don't think they are the root cause.
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>