Re: [arch-d] IAB Technical Discussion on Fragmentation: 2023-05-03

[Arnaud Taddei <[e-mail]>]

Both presentations were interesting to me and I learnt a few things so it was helpful (including the rules, so I hope this is ok to share here if not tell me)

However I am really surprised on the positions regarding private sector. Like if the private sector had some choices, very strange. 

Just without really thinking about it and listing a few forces:

Compliancy is imposed by administrations (national, regional, etc.) on companies and this is a big source of what we call here ‘hyper-regionalisation’ instead of fragmentation. This is mostly law fare that is imposing technical constraints by ripple effects on all sorts of dimensions (security, international data transfer, localisation, logging, networking, cloud tenants, etc.)
This is not an enterprise choice
Security is itself imposing defences that for a long time, as the name will indicate a sign of fragmentation, are under the ‘perimeter defence’ principle moving to new … ‘words’ like Zero Trust.  
This is not an enterprise choice
Clouds are by their nature destroying one part of interoperability. e.g. in the general case (you can always have some luck with peering) you can’t leverage 2 components that sit on 2 cloud providers because of the network topology underlying will create latency. 
This is not an enterprise choice: Enterprises hate it because it leads to vendor lock-in
Centralisation of offers in a few hands which creates its own fragmentation "by gravitation"
This is not an enterprise choice + e.g. the EU is now putting language irt ‘concentration’ in its laws
… To be continued, discussed … 

Agree with Vittorio and Brian in general and especially on ‘dual-use’, and again, as the other SDOs should stay in their box, same to IETF. 

Just that from the last IETF 116 I learnt we moved from End to End principle, to Edge to Edge, which is in itself a new source of fragmentation perhaps?

Probably just 0.02 swiss franks


> On 3 May 2023, at 23:12, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On 04-May-23 03:36, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> 
> Thanks for sending your view of the meeting. On one point:
> 
>> I thought that we were in favour of privacy and end-user control, not against! 
> 
> It certainly depends on who you mean by "we". We, the IETF, and by implication the IAB, are to some extent the victims of the tussle here. Yes, we believe that making the Internet work better includes providing technology for private end-to-end communication. We work to specify such technology. But I think you'll find that this is dual-use technology. It can be used to create walled gardens as well as to protect individual rights. I think that the dual-use analogy probably extends to most of the technology of concern here.
> 
> You are correct that the IAB and the IETF need to watch out here and, I believe, need to steer clear of taking sides about how our dual-use technology is applied. ISOC might want to get into that morass, but we here should stay out of it, IMHO.
> 
> Regards
>    Brian


-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.