Re: [arch-d] Splintering (fragmentation) vs Centralization vs Users

[Arnaud Taddei <[e-mail]>]

Good write up Brian which reminds me 2 things + 1 addition

1) DINRG had a similar discussion in IETF 116 on the theme "does a new technolog drive those tendendencies?” (This was about centralisation)
2) We looked at IMAP for example and I reminded a discussion I had perhaps 25 years ago with Bill Yeager and he had a really good metaphor (and that was prior to “social networks” era), which then led me to another such discussion with Mark Crispin (rip)

The addition is that my brain is missing security in the picture as a "superposition state” (and I use Quantum Physics on purpose … not just in memory of our joint past at CERN!) in particular recognising the intrication of privacy and security.

Now I thought initially ‘because defence is creating its own twist here’ but then I realized that to a certain degree this is as well because each of the 3 constituencies of your picture are not just defenders, they are attackers too in multiple forms.

I am not sure (this early morning) if this is a primary level issue or if it is a secondary level issue in your proposal. 

Hope this helps a little bit

> On 4 May 2023, at 23:39, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> After a little off-list discussion, I have a few more general thoughts
> on this topic. (I won't identify the other person in that discussion,
> to respect their privacy.)
> 
> I mentioned that some security technology that we develop could be
> "dual use", e.g. useful both for privacy and useful for walled gardens.
> So perhaps we should be careful when evaluating new ideas that they
> cannot be used for undesirable purposes as well as the intended purpose.
> If we consider that both excessive centralization and excessive
> splintering (a.k.a. fragmentation) are bad things, does a new technology
> drive those tendendencies? Could we design it differently to avoid
> this?
> 
> Is there scope for IAB guidance to the IETF about what aspects of
> protocols, especially security protocols, might encourage or discourage
> either centralization or splintering?
> 
> That could be a productive use of the IAB's resources where we might
> have some impact. Discussion of wider societal, commercial and
> political issues in the IAB and IETF would get nowhere, and in my
> opinion is best left to ISOC.
> 
> There's very clearly a 3-way tussle, and that makes all discussion
> difficult, especially since each national government has different
> goals. ASCII art:
> 
>                Users
>           (freedom of action,
>                privacy)
>                /    \
>               /      \
>              /        \
>      National          Global
>   governments -------- businesses
>   (defend or          (capture &
>    control             exploit
>    citizens &          customers)
>    economy)
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss&source=gmail-imap&ust=1683841175000000&usg=AOvVaw3DIB56mqn7ZU0a53yuDvJE


-- 
This electronic communication and the information and any files transmitted 
with it, or attached to it, are confidential and are intended solely for 
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain 
information that is confidential, legally privileged, protected by privacy 
laws, or otherwise restricted from disclosure to anyone else. If you are 
not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the 
e-mail to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
copying, distributing, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of 
this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail in error, 
please return the e-mail to the sender, delete it from your computer, and 
destroy any printed copy of it.