Re: [arch-d] Splintering (fragmentation) vs Centralization vs Users

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 06-May-23 00:16, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> When you say "centralization", what do you mean ?

I mean that, to continue your example, there is basically exactly
one on-line bookseller in the world, which has all the properties of
a monopolist. How that is implemented in terms of servers, private
networks, CDNs, distributed data centres, etc. is a separate question.

For continuation of the argument, see Christian Huitema's message.

    Brian

> 
> If one Internet bookseller has one server in Seattle for all its global
> customers, is that centralized, or is it decentralized because its just one
> out of many equal booksellers with servers on the Internet ?
> 
> If the same bookseller has millions of servers to buy books all over the planet,
> is that decentralized now, or do you call that centralized, because the Internet
> enabled that one bookseller to eliminate most others ?
> 
> How can therer even be an answer to these questions without admitting that
> we do have an interest in the higher-layer reasons and implications of our
> protocol work, and that we can not even make technical judgmenets with that
> "use-case" discussion.
> 
> And i thought we also already agreed that we needed to be more precise in terminology,
> such as attempting not to use centralized/decentralized for everything unqualified.
> E.g.: monopolization was bought up as another good term to distinguish cases.
> 
> Cheers
>      Toerless
> 
> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:39:17AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> After a little off-list discussion, I have a few more general thoughts
>> on this topic. (I won't identify the other person in that discussion,
>> to respect their privacy.)
>>
>> I mentioned that some security technology that we develop could be
>> "dual use", e.g. useful both for privacy and useful for walled gardens.
>> So perhaps we should be careful when evaluating new ideas that they
>> cannot be used for undesirable purposes as well as the intended purpose.
>> If we consider that both excessive centralization and excessive
>> splintering (a.k.a. fragmentation) are bad things, does a new technology
>> drive those tendendencies? Could we design it differently to avoid
>> this?
>>
>> Is there scope for IAB guidance to the IETF about what aspects of
>> protocols, especially security protocols, might encourage or discourage
>> either centralization or splintering?
>>
>> That could be a productive use of the IAB's resources where we might
>> have some impact. Discussion of wider societal, commercial and
>> political issues in the IAB and IETF would get nowhere, and in my
>> opinion is best left to ISOC.
>>
>> There's very clearly a 3-way tussle, and that makes all discussion
>> difficult, especially since each national government has different
>> goals. ASCII art:
>>
>>                  Users
>>             (freedom of action,
>>                  privacy)
>>                  /    \
>>                 /      \
>>                /        \
>>        National          Global
>>     governments -------- businesses
>>     (defend or          (capture &
>>      control             exploit
>>      citizens &          customers)
>>      economy)
>>
>> Regards
>>     Brian Carpenter
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Architecture-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>