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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 07 February 2020 19:51 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 0544C120862 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:51:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 ROrm2ATj8Ac3 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) (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 0885B12011C for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id b9so290372pgk.12 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Iln0L90XiHgluYLFaqF2DttjlpojkQJdvacNfLVzCi4=; b=EU99TLVXrWexoydQGbnXWCgsySgTxexe6F3x3dkup5663VXa3z9MnwRxPnJWYA8iwN PrqkqMvjzr+TO+ITD/yB/0nu/yzLcxsJPW7vDgUU8B57EHtw11QymF1IRBnGHHc0G9la YreYRf2nKIDptGLbugN6p98fD3KrsbrxeEcZdsK05qfy5nJLF49AWw+8uVkhvMlx1nY1 rckQ3RLSrX/N736u33XsIZ08rrvpwUB553+67//CWVFN3bEbpD/Ga1+s17YqAg0SSlFT zZmyerSsNSLzpgYsJKGN7RCnlLQDLZpGHzwGj9Um5uadJBBZzZWpLq9bS1phRonSEkgU IKzA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Iln0L90XiHgluYLFaqF2DttjlpojkQJdvacNfLVzCi4=; b=OCdFnHjjzyNKcV8uqWdpN0UPacm27uhOl+H6L8UuRYEW8DRgGRn9ITGnNdaXmliXxx WYpg2Qc/vVX+fciS8ibtHaqlJGaCNVZaipB0UmcreCJh4r4BdocfDMbXJhk5qi3S2S7J UJ/cF3O8F5uNlVDsM58k60VY09+TNBgTW5g0+3DXeAHGjCOeZezyHfgBje2hncc7lKR/ pPD111PIGSwGZbP8WbLkDFwx1PBn2z4kfqrnjatKo1wvw1bbnXjhRkzfHkTPWN6lLWLP lngDJED6pAUek6oYFRVn9isd789Jc1W0/3wch6Lt0QYDd6DzLZifU5TeRU761aoiSFx8 bIWg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXXg3B8PnyS9rXbFSAazcrAKCSv7WiP6rjP9PSfcAbzOGj2/9Fj t29zx+GTbf2sg+D/pYuhpxRKN/NT
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy5PaOw76z/brAXmceFy5WdNA5IiMNf3gkBxnkUr7+jHf0omCc0ZKyVpokYqEPrfajuPgtSdA==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:5508:: with SMTP id j8mr838555pgb.170.1581105088492; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:51:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.30] (88.161.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.161.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d3sm3417954pjx.10.2020.02.07.11.51.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:51:27 -0800 (PST)
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
References: <158094293707.31222.730373457433066701.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1c0861ff-cd59-1c43-6aa9-76e369128115@gmail.com> <70F445A3-CECF-4696-990D-0EA804BF962C@cisco.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <724115e2-345c-db3d-2190-6cd7ef9dce82@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 08:51:24 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <70F445A3-CECF-4696-990D-0EA804BF962C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/8oiTgU14dY-U4PIAMUwmtDQM7CY>
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 19:51:31 -0000

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