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

"Patrik Fältström " <> Sat, 28 December 2019 21:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F342D12018B for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:07:28 -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 w3IyVyyfF4Gn for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D5A5120105 for <>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:07:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:9d12:94ab:eb28:d7e8]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B912626BB0; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:07:21 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1577567241; bh=dpM467IwFSPd0/KUDi8rMRBMJvY0lhoNKN8Gg6IVBOk=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hujV57RU7gBvmnXBUrHVNZ3fJfoAgncqNa8/WDfPB6fbtlrOpa+kUoy95HWQrIA6B p3o+uBxX2MWc9Jjj0cSHF/AQVBzLhlVdJWm2PlDQl943C4e0xCRrLnmzwtcpMPv5B0 M3ZTDP3993cG+S27bENyU8fEFa+M2CefJNxsws0g=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <>
To: "Andrew Campling" <>
Cc:,, "S Moonesamy" <>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:07:20 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB0573E1B462A3804525BB2646C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_1AC959DC-85E6-485D-8609-497C6CE664DE_="; 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: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 21:07:29 -0000

On 28 Dec 2019, at 20:31, Andrew Campling wrote:

> Whilst it may be uncomfortable for some participants, some actions taken by the IETF (and other groups like ICANN) do in fact have policy implications for others.  I believe that it is foolish to ignore this and pretend that the IETF can operate in a libertarian bubble, somehow insulated both from the results of its own actions and from the views of others. 

You should be careful when comparing results of the ICANN process that ends up in contractual agreements, where ICANN the organisation is one of the signatories, with the result of IETF process, where the contracted parties do choose to reference the IETF products (the RFCs).

I am pretty sure participants in the IETF are aware of the trust IETF has, but on the other hand, participants also know that whatever is produced can also be ignored.

ICANN, ITU and many other processes are different. Very different.