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

S Moonesamy <> Sun, 29 December 2019 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B80512008C for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:08:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQq0BtOFJDK9 for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4C912006F for <>; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:08:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xBTM8ahb028633 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:08:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1577657332; x=1577743732;; bh=nEu1aGIwOJ0mxcI+sKwApWN/bsDGnUGRGGtg6oAngI4=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=BnqFtNIW5lDr2IoVI4FCHPH1iL8TNiceV4YbUL1meUhrrJHut9stduqC2omwsp3Gj GZPKzhXBshDsYtxRvqjCuv89rlH206kNV8f+BIWdJWxrOX0QyaD3//trZfrNX5mzbb 3IYJsUyMnHcAwVzsSREPteEAmhX0cd115yvBC67I=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 13:55:57 -0800
To: Vittorio Bertola <>, Marc Blanchet <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: < m>
References: <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:08:54 -0000

Hi Vittorio, Marc,
At 02:53 AM 27-12-2019, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>However, the fact that a proper, effective, global policy-making 
>body for the Internet does not exist will not make the need for it 
>disappear. Simply, what is happening is that, in the absence of 
>global consensus decisions on policy issues, the discussion and the 
>action moves to the only level which is equipped with somewhat 
>effective policy making and enforcement tools: national Parliaments 
>and governments.
>This is a consequence of the Internet community failing to establish 
>an effective global policy-making mechanism in parallel to the very 
>effective global technical standardization mechanism, and on top of 
>it, taking decisions and embracing policies that would never reach 
>consensus in the broader circle of non-technical Internet stakeholders.

The attendance number for IGF was 5,000.  The number for the last 
IETF meeting was 1,012.  There were some discussions, from a policy 
perspective, about standardization.  It takes some effort to 
understand the relevance or the pick up the noteworthy details.

Some entities may be of the view that there is a need for a global 
policy-making body.  There are two ways to make that happen.  That's 
not the current trend though.

>Several people here seem to think that they can use their position 
>of technology makers to force unwelcome policies onto about 200 
>countries in the world, but I doubt that in the long term this 
>attempt will bode well for the Internet. I think we will just see more

The 200 figure seems a bit of the high side.

At 11:46 AM 28-12-2019, Marc Blanchet wrote:
>IMHO, we are diverging pretty off the initial proposed charter. Well 
>I can understand your point of view, I think the policy side, as you 
>describe, should be outside the scope of the charter.
>Can we come back to technical content?

There is the following sentence in the proposed charter: "For 
example, if one implementation dominates in deployment to the extent 
that bugs or vulnerabilities in that implementation could create 
significant effects, or if only a small number of service providers 
are so widely used that they effectively become "too big to fail", 
even though failures are always possible".  Is the second part of the 
sentence (small number of service providers) a technical matter?

The proposal also states that "resilience is the result of protocol 
design, implementation, and deployment choices".  Are deployment 
choices a technical matter?

S. Moonesamy