[arch-d] Value system in the achitecture

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 16 July 2016 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 91E4812D0B0 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:29:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.077
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=XKIcDmfW; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=4i61xIV1
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 fd-XJNf1HKD9 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A368E127077 for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.227.85.212]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6GFTKEl009680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1468682973; x=1468769373; bh=Sc0gMkoWA3xmOogtQsfr4NBavQo4PcQyCBxnVj48tq0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=XKIcDmfWrjIugjE5/X2MwGWIMj6PINF32ciMQxasl6LSmB51f4imxfRXJ3t5gC+4g maTaUA/dd+d787N0qwEAnoh+fJOboGjnpVJdMe62jc6LYbqQE9Yy4meip4sIs09CWg /M0HqtabdDtrDucWUgt3wdbu5fOPVITCNv0+NT0k=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1468682973; x=1468769373; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Sc0gMkoWA3xmOogtQsfr4NBavQo4PcQyCBxnVj48tq0=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc; b=4i61xIV1cez9CCHRPxDgX+60DVTks2nSsFSfvZjE97GFz1uzj5hJdPPUst3i+ahE+ TBx9VRKcJU/0v7+CWvGwHwSAxqroZNl8foCHCRcChB2OW+PgKkETOc5Speurn5yfFa NkhOtYWaNZt020dqbzl101vPnmUlKsVV0qk5bUnQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20160716034140.0a180b60@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:28:45 -0700
To: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org>, Corinne Cath <corinnecath@gmail.com>
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/HcgtAWnQKThtp5Njq5yP7Yzy6SU>
Cc: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: [arch-d] Value system in the achitecture
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:29:49 -0000

Hi Niels, Cath,

I read the following in your document:

>The main disagreement between these two academic positions lies
>mostly in the question on whether a particular value system should be
>embedded into the Internet's architecture or whether the architecture
>needs to account for a varying set of values.

Another question is whether a particular value system is part of the 
internet's architecture.  Once a value system is embedded in the 
architecture it is difficult to remove it or not use it.  For 
example, I could argue that if you do not do not like the existing 
Domain Name System you can choose another system as there isn't any 
technical limitation to prevent that.  I would be ignoring that there 
are dependencies on the Domain Name System in the architecture.

Or is the question about whether a particular ideological system 
should be embedded into the architecture, or where the architecture 
needs to account for a varying set of ideological systems, or what to 
do when there are incompatible ideologies?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy