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

Bernard Aboba <> Thu, 06 February 2020 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D9D120113 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:34:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4LwnPny2ae9 for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9DD51200FB for <>; Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:34:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 2so2147644pfg.12 for <>; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 17:34:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=TrX/Ke0bhUL0LqWOc9XZHqrOD8Yt/9hNySdJ2rueyFM=; b=GCM138wSiW02LgszlRt04H3lPnKbywlCFMrLIY2T2kTNdRXMnOm5iMN7D5EWc9v/hL lVVSl7TYn4V8raHa7faZAYEAGcCYOMm+S889IzaUkysNvIj6Mb7U/QmWj7sepkJGKqz/ Uza9vmnPuspEo6hem8iJyA45mkOSp2K+QMWUvhQ2ACSzRLK/U8kbScL9tRLdo2hlToe4 X90aQoK0ofsy44j+hMz7p8VHGHw1uXTSgb9JnXSA8jj8okwCmzxd9W/YeuBFMKNuuXQW Eoql4hULgpnD/N+z+5uKGd9lNAAnXsfBHTOFVzY0bevL8wRBnq6VgzdvuKX9bCCKABi1 HdiQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=TrX/Ke0bhUL0LqWOc9XZHqrOD8Yt/9hNySdJ2rueyFM=; b=Lsr3lycDM0IcGMem+W61M6fJijuqcK7FvoEul8YPHz77Q5u9dTkDtaT9XtJuWB1CD1 S8Dy2r8lwsyZXZ3qtrwaekNJc9R+2x89bYLQkv6X9XqALzBl9P/Ptg66Un0E5e8FZxW2 TAKIHBJB7xK2LMXELGQO3ijQFTJmE2f5jXrOKGZQpaY7bO4RP6Lz0anpWb/9MJhYdNGd cH/FCgymq0POSubFmDwAL4+eC4fnXll4yG2F1M9jz2Kt5OueTmrc50j5oTXwfIa3gLXk fuTeymfdML2o+BUN7GB3Jzj7q47/0ssmUBcNhQLjC9WJsCRAudxzeW8CqW80uoSN1ArQ 71mA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV+xsqdwLKUt6VJWZBdVdtTyCrY1xwt6OTNVdYx1xiKY6VmCKZ/ ZVzJObuBCQNQSSRBcgeFsGwmdfCI
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzw+VxZcFJUrivscvy6JGqEaukF5ZLbmHzQE2fhM28zVS27w9IAJBzmWtzLKPwX+ohTli9dgQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:513:: with SMTP id 19mr904179pgf.28.1580952850577; Wed, 05 Feb 2020 17:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:380:8047:36be:959b:75f9:dd4d:e980? ([2600:380:8047:36be:959b:75f9:dd4d:e980]) by with ESMTPSA id a69sm749182pfa.129.2020. (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Feb 2020 17:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-70502164-2206-4119-A1BA-07907B19B3EB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bernard Aboba <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 17:34:08 -0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (17D50)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Call for Comment: <draft-iab-for-the-users-02> (The Internet is for End Users)
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: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:34:14 -0000

There are a number of ways to interpret this IAB draft. If one looks at it as a refutation of David Clark’s “Tussle” work (see:'s_Internet) then Joel’s frustrations follow naturally. 

Personally, I hope the goal of the document is not to referee the “Tussle” by declaring the user as the official winner. That would be silly, if only because such a declaration would not help “the user” or any other “Tussle” participant. 

So I choose to see the draft’s contribution as pointing out IoT challenges compared with trends in the mobile and web application space (e.g. no permission model or “app store” rules limiting the damage that can be done by badly implemented or malicious devices). 

Given these widely varying reactions, the document seems like it could use a good edit to strengthen the impact of its main points.

> On Feb 5, 2020, at 4:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern <> wrote:
> I find this document very frustrating.
> The explicit recommendations seem reasonable.
> But the underlying tone that the End User concerns should take precedence over everything else seems to be incorrect.  And therefore the initial tone seems to send the wrong message.
> To provide several examples, the Internet is "for" many participants. It is for the folks offering services over the Internet.  It is for the many sensors and small devices which are expected to outnumber human users by a significant margin in the near term.  It is "for" the folks who run it, as if they can not operate the network then it won't do anyone else any good.
> I believe many of these concerns were raised by other people during earlier discussions of the document.  Assuming efforts were made to address those concerns, the changes seem to me to be insufficient.
> Yours,
> Joel
>> On 2/5/2020 5:48 PM, IAB Executive Administrative Manager wrote:
>> This is an announcement of an IETF-wide Call for Comment on
>> draft-iab-for-the-users-02.
>> The document is being considered for publication as an Informational RFC
>> within the IAB stream, and is available for inspection at:
>> <>
>> The Call for Comment will last until 2020-03-04. Please send comments to
>> and
>> Abstract:
>>    This document explains why the IAB believes the IETF should consider
>>    end users as its highest priority concern, and how that can be done.
>> _______________________________________________
>> IETF-Announce mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list