Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)

Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com> Sat, 08 February 2020 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <gsenopu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01541120074 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 06:45:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 4.003
X-Spam-Level: ****
X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.003 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rTzOrrOBTMwe for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 06:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32c.google.com (mail-ot1-x32c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 883E712006F for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 06:45:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32c.google.com with SMTP id p8so2099676oth.10 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 08 Feb 2020 06:45:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b1q26iKenDU0ea/XIv4A5MG0TF2moAeT0AOqaKBlalA=; b=eWclkGPr6F4+DKjezwt3Q7mO2OV/b/4h7maklxHQvpF1Ng3hOD0lUB1vf0z86PdV6c zahn2c/gNPEhvgIF28Sd5tMNEinlaO53aymMbczo4Gjl5wvFTv931kWL4EJDNwz1e4Iz Cx/9d1eWsU5UaIE8URRMF/X39Kf0mPBIdJB0vlHIcp25LIaV0SWeWI9kvOrFRkYI8Xle cpyqWGjd7oAwyXygsdvSMYmgkODnmqwnBrTUJvRvuoHv+8CNgGLT783eMHnEyis+YiDT OfXLzCQgJlZ5EY5xPVr8b5QJYqVf6GvrbvrOK/51mh4QhYXAqc6xYjVwryYFStzz5A6J Xxjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b1q26iKenDU0ea/XIv4A5MG0TF2moAeT0AOqaKBlalA=; b=t5O6z3lKWwVS+T+vvTSNcjYPo8luiuzn8puhgO2hWwF8TjQ1QbUWBajgAUhqYVZy/Z ZssTj6Lh+nXWGLQtiDd/vssvjOMrRoGjjqc//YhdCaFXNYRczbCswjYdB+qAQP0okQ7i xwm+LiLXDfkGQeBap+Yj9e7iIBwi3aqZF34RLSlvDnARIf35Lcw56BfC0Q8HaZjldoDZ 6cwQSs0oTeDlE6ujSN7/9VxnDEvJ4RsUPLjo5B8qfVKMb9W7dow6ys1D9BvrTC2IpQg/ RhUC0BGvRBMJAk/m+9KvDazcS0dy0QFbQeAIQWIv3wzZ+vzMOMXWd69FYKlixStHUsKu Nh2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVWcE//7ywosrRRqq8fAX2aLjLYPZnMf4glfPbFwcIQ3TXYO3Kv IuMAdqtIOiD8ny3uOMpLdFFdxRJXVdT+56+KEEo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyogUeOizVtMVaZUSrPBYknttBwegaGXClT2zEdQ+DnXWys8z2APbzgxz7JTNPDvQDEpI5qod5Bau3/zEYtG/s=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:831:: with SMTP id 46mr3723321oty.295.1581173127763; Sat, 08 Feb 2020 06:45:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1155:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Feb 2020 06:45:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <724115e2-345c-db3d-2190-6cd7ef9dce82@gmail.com>
References: <158094293707.31222.730373457433066701.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1c0861ff-cd59-1c43-6aa9-76e369128115@gmail.com> <70F445A3-CECF-4696-990D-0EA804BF962C@cisco.com> <724115e2-345c-db3d-2190-6cd7ef9dce82@gmail.com>
From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <gsenopu@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 21:45:27 +0700
Message-ID: <CAKi_AEuhpdzZNjn5wHiUsF0CAgWecwhZVAyxOou3=WyT5r03+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "iab@iab.org" <iab@iab.org>, "architecture-discuss@ietf.org" <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009bdb0d059e118e10"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/29Bw5rSq1Y2MKH6ZPOsCxUqgK94>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2020 14:45:31 -0000

Dear architecture-discuss,


Section 4.1 Engaging the Internet Community of the IAB draft on "User"
which is especially in relation with IETF"s Internet Standad Process and
other key organizations involved:



"... to consult with that greater Internet community.  We should enter into a
   dialogue about not only the technical concerns that are well-
   represented in the IETF but also the political, social and economic
   concerns that it engenders, and that are better represented
   elsewhere.

...".




The paragraph above represents what is worked on by "2019 ISOC GIR --
Consolidation in the Internet Economy" which is about programming for users
a way how to see the Internet's meanings and values:


"... we identify the important properties that make the Internet such a
powerful platform and describe what this means for the users of the
Internet. This framework will help to guide us in considering the questions
of consolidation in the Internet economy.

* Fundamental properties of the Internet
(: Internet Invariants – what really matters about the Internet3): 1.
global reach and integrity, 2. general purpose, 3. supports innovation
without requiring permission, 4. accesible, 5. based on interoperability
and mutual agreement, 6. collaboration, 7. technology, reusable building
blocks, 8. no permanent favourits

"The Internet Society believes that the Internet based on these invariants
empowers users with certain abilities. These abilities stem from the
invariants and underpin the social and economic value that the Internet
provides to people. As we look to the future, these abilities must remain
at the heart of the Internet experience for everyone, everywhere:.

They are the abilities to connect, to speak, to innovate, to share, to
choose, to trust.


"* The Internet in society
The Internet Invariants provide a guide to what really matters about the
Internet in terms of its architecture and technological properties. The
abilities highlight the different ways in which the Internet affects human
societies and supports us in understanding why people care so much about
this technological artefact that is much more than the sum of its parts.
Both notions will help guide us as we consider the issues of consolidation
in the Internet economy".


(4. How We See the Internet, pp. 12-14)

https://future.internetsociety.org/2019/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/04/InternetSociety-GlobalInternetReport-ConsolidationintheInternetEconomy.pdf


Those are in accordance with what are mentioned in RFC 2026 which is
especially about the ISOC having important role in "Internet Standard
Process" together with other organizations involved in in the Internet
standard process mentioned in RFC 2028 (IETF, IETF WG, IETF Sec, ISOC, IAB,
IESG, IANA, IRTF)



"...The Internet Standards process is an activity of the Internet Society
that is organized and managed on behalf of the Internet community by the
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the Internet Engineering Steering
Group (IESG)".



(RFC 2026 -- Internet Standard Process
sec. 1. Introduction p. 3)

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt


"The Internet Society (ISOC) is an international organization concerned
with the growth and evolution of the worldwide Internet and with the
social, political, and technical issues that arise from its use...

Internet standardization is an organized activity of the ISOC, with the
Board of Trustees being responsible for ratifying the procedures and rules
of the Internet standards process [B]".


(RFC 2028 sec. 3 "Key organization involved in the process" p. 4)

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2028#section-3.4

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Sabtu, 08 Februari 2020, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
menulis:

> Hi Eliot,
>
> On 07-Feb-20 22:01, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> >> On 7 Feb 2020, at 02:13, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com
> <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think the second sentence is a highly debatable assertion. Apart from
> >> anything else, I thought it was the ISOC's job, in the accepted division
> >> of labour according to BCP11.: https://tools.ietf.org
> /html/rfc2028#section-3.4
> >> But equally important, I think we have good reason to believe that the
> >> people who typically participate in the IETF are not the right sort of
> >> people to engage usefully in dialogue about "political, social and
> economic
> >> concerns". I think we will only burn our fingers.
> >
> > While that may be true, the IETF cannot just stuff this stuff off to the
> ISOC.  If work being taken on has societal consequences, the IETF should be
> aware of them, and better to have the impacted people represent their
> concerns themselves through direct participation in IETF processes, rather
> than ISOC attempting to proxy for them.
>
> The IETF being open to all, yes, of course direct participation is
> available and welcome. But that doesn't mean that the IETF can itself
> engage with civil society, lobbying groups, special interest groups,
> governments, and whatever, which the draft seems to suggest:
>
> > 4.1.  Engaging the Internet Community
> ...
> >    Therefore, we have not only a responsibility to analyse and consider
> >    the impacts of the IETF's work, but also a responsibility to consult
> >    with that greater Internet community.
>
> That ("consult with that greater Internet community") seems infeasible.
>
> >    We should enter into a
> >    dialogue about not only the technical concerns that are well-
> >    represented in the IETF but also the political, social and economic
> >    concerns that it engenders, and that are better represented
> >    elsewhere.
>
> That is very obscurely phrased. Does it mean that in addition to our
> existing channel of communication with ISOC, we should have channels of
> communication with other organisations? If so, which ones, and who is the
> arbiter when they disagree? When the EFF says one thing, and the IAB (I
> mean iab.com) says another thing, who do we listen to?
>
> I just don't find this section of the draft realistic at all.
>
> Note, I am not saying that the "political, social and economic concerns"
> don't matter. They do matter. I'm just not seeing the mechanism for taking
> them into account.
>
> Regards
>     Brian
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>