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

"Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net> Thu, 06 February 2020 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 86A821208AF for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:06:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lowentropy.net header.b=YF+yDTtn; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=QzPvM2iv
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 Cd363HySaEZM for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout4-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6D2F1208AE for <architecture-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 07:06:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0287E310; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:06:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 10:06:48 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm1; bh=BU4/lHSr4kkCdbCYiZJA6F0kNvvldCo SJ6Dla6DP7u4=; b=YF+yDTtng3LRdrVFpdhiQaVD53VJLCReB0kJnoxFds+QoqT xIoTt15WCsfXQSg2gcAsagFauXwec3+oWn7Cemus9QeeUEhYXMH5esWm/kDCkYZq 8+ZkltOq1xtmgm6asIpw+CBRWvTX6DJNQBWiP1WqB9cU0RKroC0L2Nd/Tb6KALU4 9Z2Jnx+tSCLMkX1X4aqNXX568iwEaZyJl7AKxD6BR2oSVC47eev4FJo99y4qUuvg 8YVBqb3P9w3EfCOVSB6Sb39eP4d4kD3oZnSsevtROgrOWwMt+k+d4hQg/DIlArcg UUGP8PpZZdtxblh0wSB1xk4DrwlA4gra7NNYHtg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=BU4/lH Sr4kkCdbCYiZJA6F0kNvvldCoSJ6Dla6DP7u4=; b=QzPvM2ivM2APEw44mfuffg LniREJxE1PatyBKAH1/cO3TEVsR2RJVqIvVdmA+QbuPHPZGtKHwvzVcBhOBd/WFS Ex4Kdb3lzN7tc6l2PDcd+UqoO4mbZ67E5rGVP+xMaEiToihONzFcHN11BqaVQdcw ScSX4YbNukkUG9oLFCYwj3soJb1WNed0eG5AgX3+dIunn0dsq3f+ZE6T1tXiNwQq 6dqgZRXQX86/deZr+xtbaBky3vX9KoHKJXmqk3uuITsW7jaB5QNvYLz/NAtowVFz FxKZBwRoguF/i43TqUgVZVCLujsp89WR6IGEFxhOM7tecEvhInOQ2PbXqikZlnBg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:his8Xv1KnWP8aa_EktrGUBgesnC5WyhpKJkIPW0eAHsHjPqGXzoccw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrheefgdejvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttdertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhht ihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucevlh hushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigv nhhtrhhophihrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:his8XqLskj9igfNJ0oh6gohZLS4hDTuYEDBm9cPD-7t3JZMVF6n3KA> <xmx:his8XrNC7wzrs9M9TMKpty3ACvffYDCoacJ7y584I9pQrx-JF7EOtQ> <xmx:his8XjyVPDMAe4lOWe04-FAM7JYDj6-sVreoHNcP_Uzym5cLp1_3eQ> <xmx:hys8XipI6Iv3WyDPQRWTvhdAC5Y4Kaxxw5nQQNB9sZNMsbEmoQVZ3Q>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 97096E00AF; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:06:46 -0500 (EST)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-802-g7a41c81-fmstable-20200203v1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <b5bb7eb9-1ddd-440d-ae26-5f147e3b8b4d@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <df12869f-7cc9-d90b-9866-78d00c4ff2e6@joelhalpern.com>
References: <158094293707.31222.730373457433066701.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <deaf2366-b835-5ed5-48f3-6303b1836d7b@joelhalpern.com> <17b0861f-079f-4a12-914b-d88a9056ccd2@www.fastmail.com> <df12869f-7cc9-d90b-9866-78d00c4ff2e6@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 16:06:25 +0100
From: "Martin Thomson" <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: "Joel Halpern Direct" <jmh.direct@joelhalpern.com>, architecture-discuss@ietf.org, iab@iab.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/TDWa9LjeO0QdGwBVzVrXzmucoQQ>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] =?utf-8?q?=5BIAB=5D_Call_for_Comment=3A_=3Cdraft-iab-fo?= =?utf-8?q?r-the-users-02=3E_=28The_Internet_is_for_End_Users=29?=
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 15:06:50 -0000

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 15:47, Joel Halpern Direct wrote:
> Yes, put simply, I think that declaring that the user's interest takes 
> precedence over everything else is wrong.

This statement implies that the draft is somewhat more absolutist than it is.  This recognizes the equities of over stakeholders and expresses an intent to *bias* toward end-user interests over those of others.  That doesn't invalidate the tussle, it just places a thumb on the scale; something Dave Clark suggested in his recent plenary talk (apologies for the appeal to authority there).

I infer from this that you also object to that notion also.  If so, then maybe we will just have to agree to disagree.