Re: [arch-d] [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-00.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 23 March 2022 21:34 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.80.82.1.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <759344785.233141.1648029629399@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 08:34:35 +1100
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A62C53F1-7DE6-49EB-8033-BB7F0036702F@mnot.net>
References: <164665830475.9071.8466189982967205512@ietfa.amsl.com> <FC6FDD98-33F6-4424-861B-ECD964FA4727@kuehlewind.net> <352418C7-D37C-4308-93CA-C1457F0BDA86@mnot.net> <759344785.233141.1648029629399@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com>
To: Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/PujTuwffPTcQyDl13-bL3WalqXI>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-signals-collaboration-00.txt
Precedence: list

Hey Vittorio,

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 9:00 pm, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> wrote:
> 
>> Il 23/03/2022 01:10 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> ha scritto:
>> 
>> * In turn, that implies that each function needs to be considered legitimate enough by the Internet community to warrant such a protocol design effort.
> 
> I do not disagree, but this last bullet implies the extremely hard discussion on who is "the Internet community" and who is entitled to speak for it. This is even more difficult given that there is ample disagreement between stakeholders on whether network access to connection information is desirable, acceptable or dangerous, and that some of these stakeholders have strong business or political interests in making that happen or not happen, so full consensus, perhaps even rough consensus, is likely to be impossible.

I don't think we disagree here; just because something is published by the IETF doesn't convey universal legitimacy -- although it's one signal, due to the quality of some of our output and the openness of our process. Adoption by many users and networks is another such signal.

> IMHO a reasonable stance for a technical SDO would be to develop the technical mechanism so that those who can and want to introduce this kind of information exchange can do so in the best possible way, and then stay entirely out of any deployment or policy discussion, unless stars somehow align and we discover that there is at least something that we all agree upon.

I don't think it's reasonable to 'stay entirely out of any deployment or policy discussion' when designing a technical mechanism that directly impacts both. What's important is that we remember the role we're playing as engineers, which is where our legitimacy is sourced from -- technical expertise, combined with a history of delivering specifications that improve the Internet that people get so much utility from.

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

[arch-d] Fwd: [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-si… Mirja Kuehlewind
Re: [arch-d] [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-sig… Mark Nottingham
Re: [arch-d] [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-sig… Melinda Shore
Re: [arch-d] [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-sig… Vittorio Bertola
Re: [arch-d] [IAB] I-D Action: draft-iab-path-sig… Mark Nottingham