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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Sun, 29 December 2019 07:15 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
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 2407C12004E for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:15:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=frobbit.se
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 BhfHDF2xWwUe for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:15:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2011E1200A1 for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 23:15:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.165.72.241] (unknown [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffc:0:61ce:2bc8:31cc:8fd]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C9C3422D12; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:15:43 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=frobbit.se; s=mail; t=1577603743; bh=7zdkkm58mDTNXj5pJAqFEpGDdUW2bHb4YL2ylWoIXgQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=m0DslAIlzRGBsjbfE9nl5L5XJeSJv+Tw3OGMnBXeJrH6soM377oczd9hg2xSQHC1A D3TETCklvKJ3I0CUHV5TWdevTcfrhZM3uZ1t+HDc2NPwkgw22DMiJUT5QzSIbiWW8p 0VSkg2vEfZSLQHJXeZycMWq6nvNdRt//GVjIQ1Gw=
From: "Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=" <paf@frobbit.se>
To: "Scott Brim" <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Cc: architecture-discuss@iab.org
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:15:42 +0100
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5671)
Message-ID: <E95AE27C-005B-48CE-8B24-38F344902B7F@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv4CP9nZXREJDu9bauseQ5DWsCv9vioYsRLirp25uqx+n=Nzg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <1127343564.5806.1577112317584@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <ebcca2be-6839-8f43-d74f-0e863e32cd2d@cs.tcd.ie> <2068147434.6516.1577178675917@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20191227130815.120fc690@elandnews.com> <LO2P265MB0573E1B462A3804525BB2646C2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <2CA4CBDC-CAB0-4E02-BC4C-40DF67FB64BC@tony.li> <LO2P265MB05733F3BE310F2B6DAFDA54FC2250@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <304321FD-CB1A-45FE-B67D-0C8ABA6F0BF5@frobbit.se> <CAPv4CP9nZXREJDu9bauseQ5DWsCv9vioYsRLirp25uqx+n=Nzg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_0FFA668C-5D71-432F-8824-64FB136E3465_="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/5pltvrfwGNhG7aAd9KHOsg9aDZI>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 07:15:48 -0000

On 29 Dec 2019, at 0:44, Scott Brim wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:07 PM Patrik Fältström <paf=
> 40frobbit.se@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> ICANN, ITU and many other processes are different. Very different.
>>
>
> First of all, yes -- and the ITU-T process attracts certain kinds of people and certain kinds of goals, just as the IETF and ICANN do. This -- the character of other organizations -- needs to be taken into account when deciding whether the IETF can cede all policy decisions to others.
>
> Second, historically the wiretap discussions were very significant in that the IETF explicitly made a policy decision in the form of an engineering decision. At least when I was active I believe the IETF considered policy issues all the time, if only implicitly.

Correct Scott, but I was more thinking of the fact ITU-T results might bind the members (the member States) by treaties, which implies the members do not have any choice but implement the outcomes. Just like ICANN outcomes are binding for the contracted parties in many cases.

IETF do not have such arrangements. We implement if we like what IETF produce.

   Patrik