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

Guntur Wiseno Putra <> Thu, 06 February 2020 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 146B5120233; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:14:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1EtxSyzgfRAy; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2033E1200D6; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:14:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p8so4924837oth.10; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:14:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tGRmWqqhXnT9+maZdREha/wkaRw8mX+FfPOjlbGqWlU=; b=uIxOQETzv0vE5+NHbUoXJajiG628CJUCLv2qXJzfi8i35PixA74/Ak6ylvt1OFqEF4 d8W0Yawt3QMRi+39nCWdvQSPvqIqd2NjfKCZO3LNMW3ni56Pz/k6rmpRLvp66SeDPR4H V4p7uFSLaOWLEZIRDsQM0SPx0x5rnaNbRMXWMraY6VFd02mnh8UxvidQSj8NIJ6djR0h K5NESk86DowlrCSiiukIgNoMmP+Y0aFYw3FYzEFc20oMrxI5ZgSfF0znY4CKSRQax1ij aMU3HdVi+Cw1UCvVInSW7ajTnJihcxg1Ij1yg0lwQ+ZZPKLGbqKvVzeHr/5BFOrboU3r Kmgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tGRmWqqhXnT9+maZdREha/wkaRw8mX+FfPOjlbGqWlU=; b=e35YOK4rG+OefJ4msBP25aPbR0tSd2SNtYhNvv49ehfaDDniwfkg3hdLDaya18lBZV gynwzfDuopVxBgbTfVvj5AvncbBQhSmddmtpIW2N3ohOmzkFiBjkvWC/D64W8ALpCj6G Rs2KHVNkkib5hIVQJ4HhmH7tPgp8rQHm5WLlroPAiwzd0zXj5ODjcQxTcxNMGt6npLrC 6++gw3qfxIPXE/p/0FGY/FNS3b5yTNWg67GgBlFDKo3+3LKy7FJ9Siu8vV0C+uNfmpOm xViT9cHtJn9HFnuqb1p0nlBSo06b+4X/1bjzy7I8GeD5ZLtQQlFUb+xXqLV6Wm06sW2F AjYw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXKAAF2u875dkGhIhRVo+vSu6bh9tWzFV9t+fvKWztpNzuPmOOt rkZgQkORAx3Fmg4q99LsaFKusdIOISETe+Y99UU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxOB8vi8qB9F597izqK54kPtEtLTx2nwruXYJNKW8CXOIiYTmhdsT0im593kTmkrdKDmtOnRyDF/q4L07nB/Ww=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:170a:: with SMTP id i10mr29412750ota.284.1580984093366; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 02:14:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1155:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 02:14:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 17:14:52 +0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Michael StJohns <>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <>, "" <>, IAB <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000047dd81059de58b18"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:14:58 -0000

Dear architecture-discuss,

Concerning with section 4.1. of the draf "Engaging with Internet Community"
may the "free" collecting of readings I am making inspire minds related
with such a greater networked communities of reading, a greater networked
libraries... (Minds which are perhaps about user-based interest groups,
pedagogy of networks, savant networkers...?)

I am "freely" collecting, among others, informational sources on how The
Internet (Engineering Task Force) is about Society, Technology and Policy


The Internet: Society, Technology and Policy

A current situation of the Internet is among others about "society",
"technology" and "policy" as it is shown by "2019 ISOC Global Internet
Report Consolidation in the Internet Economy" especially section "Takeaways
& Observations: Responses to Consolidation" pointing to "Examples of
government responses", "Examples of responses from other stakeholders" and
a question "Will governance efforts remain siloed"? (pp. 51-7)

The Internet (Engineering Task Force): Society, Technology and Policy

I finded it out the IETF Journal: "IETF News: Integrating The Worlds of
Technology Design and Policy"
By: Dilawar Grewal PhD, Date: July 6 2016

RFC 3935-The mission Statement of the IETF said that high quality, relevant
technical documents produced by the IETF to make the Internet works better
are meant to “…influence the way people design, use, and manage the
Internet,” alludes to things other than just technical standards. Use and
management are often related to things like policies, the human factor,
behaviors, rights, acceptability, implementation criteria and protocols,
and even politics. It is in this context that this paper explores the IETF
experience for participants in the Internet Society Fellowship to the IETF

Another article "IETF News: Internet Regulators, Technologists Seek Ongoing
By: Carolyn Duffy Marsan, Date: July 6, 2016

"The Internet Society should continue to foster dialogue between Internet
policymakers and IETF technologists with the goal of creating a more open
and secure Internet. That was the consensus of an Internet
Society-sponsored panel discussion held in Buenos Aires during IETF 95
entitled, Public Policy and Internet Technology Development".


"IETF NEWS: ISOC Panel Addresses Regulation, Innovation, and the Internet"
By: Carolyn Duffy Marsan, Date: October 6, 2011

"What will drive the Internet’s evolution in the future: market forces or
government regulation? This was the topic debated by a panel of experts at
an Internet Society-sponsored luncheon held in Quebec City in conjunction
with the IETF 81 meeting.

Panelists, including experts from across the IETF community, predicted a
future of increasing regulation given how the Internet has become critical
infrastructure for both government and industry.




(1) It is in the "Internet Society Open Forum Library" I am making the
"free" collection beginning with Manuel Catells" "Informationalism,
Technology and Network Society", mediated by the ITU of the UN Report
"...Leveraging Tech... and 2019 ISOC Global Internet Report especially of
"Responses to Consolidation" looking at governments' and other stake
holders' "Responses to Consolidation".

Accessing the library needs an ISOC membership account as I knows it

Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Kamis, 06 Februari 2020, Michael StJohns <>

> On 2/5/2020 7:01 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
> On 05/02/2020 23:51, Michael StJohns wrote:
> On 2/5/2020 6:30 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote
> I don't recall other documents being as formal as that about it,
> but sure, if/when the IAB decide to publish this after community
> comment then it could be clearer that it's an IAB document, e.g. by
> having Mark as editor as you suggest. That it is an IAB document
> seems fairly clear to me from the filename and from the IAB
> adoption call etc. that was sent to this list back last June/July,
> but I guess that's a while back.
> Um.. yes, I know it's an IAB stream document - which does not
> necessarily imply that it is a consensus document of the entire IAB.>
> And going back and re-reading the announcement, it looks too much
> like a last call request rather than a call for "help us make the
> document better".    I'm not sure why anyone would assume that the
> IAB hadn't yet decided to publish it or something very like it.
> Well, to be fair, there was a public call for comment
> before the IAB adopted this.
> OK - then you're NOT asking for discussion on whether to publish?  :-)
> No worries - I can work with either.
> As far as I can tell from the published RFC's - documents that
> represent IAB consensus on a policy matter are mostly published as
> "Editor"Â  and have something that identifies how you got there: E.g.
> RFC8558 had Ted as editor and included this in the status:
> This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board
> (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable
> to provide for permanent record.  It represents the consensus of
> the Internet Architecture Board (IAB).  Documents approved for
> publication by the IAB are not candidates for any level of
> Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
> Documents that are more "spec"ish (i.e. the RFC v3 format) either
> have an editor or a technical expert as the author.   And even then
> you get the same statement - see RFC8546 and 8700
> Those are the last three IAB stream documents published.   Going
> back further a "tech"ish document omitted the "Consensus of the IAB"
> statement - RFC6574 - simply a report from a workshop.
> That being said, these are all statements in the status section
> which will be different from the ID to the RFC.
> Yep, the above seems (to me) like a good comment that could
> be handled without having to invent some new strict process
> for IAB stream document boilerplate - I'd hope that some
> variation in how these things are presented/worded is ok.
> I think that it needs to be brought forward to the ID in some form - or it
> needs to be included in the call for comments.  Somewhere before the RFC
> editor gets it.
> It would be
> useful for a policy document (I use the term "policy" loosely here)
> to have that consensus statement be made somewhere.  Mostly in other
> documents its pretty clear how we got there - some event, some
> workshop, some question asked at a plenary that's being answered.
> Here - I'm not sure what triggered the IAB into writing it and
> worse, I'm not sure what affect you want it to have on the formal
> IETF processes.  Context would be good, actionable recommendations
> would be better.
> That (the question of effects) seems like a separate
> point. Surely section 4 of the draft is all about
> actionable recommendations though so I'm a bit confused
> as to what you mean?
> The key word is "actionable".    I went back and re-read section 4 and
> what I got was aspirational rather than actionable.
> 4.1. comes closest to actionable with the "hold a co-located workshop"
> comment.  And even that is kind of weak.  More along the lines of "To
> husband this process of getting community buy-in we've asked ISOC to work
> with us to create workshops for the next N ISOC meetings with each of those
> workshops targeted at one of these communities.  The IAB will provide an
> overview of the IETF process, near future architecture changes and
> challenges, and how non-participation by that community might result in an
> architecture which does not meet their needs.   We will then solicit
> involvement in an IAB sponsored workshop retreat whose output shall be a
> community centric set of guidelines that will be presented to the IETF
> community for possible inclusion in the standards process" -  or something
> like that.
> I have no idea of what "We should also create explicit...." means in
> section 4.2.    If feels like a bit of a non sequitur here.  In any event,
> browsers are not protocols.  The underlying protocols evolved to meet
> functional and the browsers evolved GUI needs.  Discussing HTTP and HTML
> evolution rather than browsers in this section might be more appropriate
> and more on point for the IETF.  Then we can talk about how that maps to
> the IOT space and what we/IAB/IETF can do about it.
> In 4.3 "Negative impact on users" not being defined limits defining useful
> actions.   At least consider how you might measure those impacts in a
> relatively objective way.  Maybe reach out to someone like KC for help in
> identifying ways to do those measurements.   If it can't be measured, then
> it's going to revert to politics and money.
> 4.4 seems to be a restatement of the Prisoner's dilemma problem in some
> form.    E.g. how do you identify and balance costs to entities that might
> not have any reason to cooperate?
> 4.5 mostly deprioritizes the value of the work product of the standards
> writers vs the "needs of end users".  Basically, this doesn't meet the
> financial needs test.  Unless you're having the end users compensate the
> writers/implementers in some manner, there is little incentive to put their
> needs ahead of the writers.   At best, you can say that when choosing
> between two equally costly choices, you should pick the one that least
> impacts the end user - again - if you can identify that impact.
> Later, Mike
> Cheers,
> S.
> Later, Mike