Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

"Patrik Fältström " <> Sun, 29 December 2019 16:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020D8120077 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:25:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m7o4r5GTAEv2 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4A6612001A for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:25:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:61ce:2bc8:31cc:8fd]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B646E234D5; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:25:31 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1577636731; bh=aBKzQjOtkgyr33gzVcAHwBKCjKWzdaHWuZOt7k7uC7Y=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Z7E7xZnXuXjBHkSbU225QD+JE2IC5ZRH2nqAcp6N7xZjPzDAI927OWKh7vH2eqWaR YEQAHgcRRWgLaYVInQaxM2qCqkZrx9EZOG8BBYTZOVyFyOAxo5+4VNzAhEi05O2vta LWSLmrOvGiODjqpN58/XGR1n6eSeUBnTP3vukzzU=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <>
To: "Niels ten Oever" <>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:25:30 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_276FA9E2-B031-40A5-84AD-F7303226F496_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 16:25:36 -0000

On 29 Dec 2019, at 14:27, Niels ten Oever wrote:

> Technology has political, economic, and sociological implications. If the IETF does not take these into account, someone else is bound to do it for the IETF.

Agree, but I think one of the main important things have to do with the fact that, for example, during my watch as Area Director for Applications Area, IETF worked hard on protocols for instant messaging. It was difficult to come to an agreement, so at the end IETF developed 4 alternative solutions (or was it 3?). Jabber (XMPP) was not one of them. Ultimately XMPP joined the IETF and IETF seems to agree it was a protocol to use.

In parallell vendors started to develop their own chat solutions and today we are where we are. Each vendor have their own service, and interoperability is about zero.

We had almost the similar situation for calendaring but at least we managed to get a standardized format for calendar events that can be sent around as a text file. The format is quite "old" looking at todays standards (and to be frank, quite stupid) but the important thing was interoperability.

Today we can send calendar events to each other even if we use different calendar programs, but we can not chat with each other.

So, if people do not like what IETF do, people just ignore IETF.