Re: [arch-d] FYI: closure of the IAB Stack Evolution program

[Henning Schulzrinne <[e-mail]>]

Some of us who worked on the Open Internet (aka network neutrality) saw
"protocol neutrality" as very much part of the same spirit and possibly a
legal entitlement of customers. And the issue of naming "Internet access"
implying some obligations was also part of the discussion. Experience seems
to indicate that only legal or regulatory requirements are likely to lead
there, given that many carriers have no economic interest to do this - and
carrier-grade NATs make it painful or impossible to move beyond TCP and UDP.

Henning

On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:07 PM Joe Touch <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 25, 2019, at 9:48 AM, John Leslie <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   Yes, QUIC employs UDP because they despaired of deploying a new
> transport protocol.
>
>   However, [e-mail] _really_shouldn't_ abandon hope
> of deploying a new transport protocol: it's _hard_; it may not happen in
> my lifetime; but the Internet, or its replacement, _will_ need a new
> transport procotol some day...
>
>
> IMO, it has a chance of happening when the IETF “grows up”.
>
> Trust, but VERIFY.
>
> The IETF started with the assumption that everyone wanted to play together
> and play nice. That ship sailed decades ago.
>
> The missing step is to create a validation suite and corresponding
> official endorsement of compliance.
>
> Without that, we’re constantly stuck with the tragedy of the commons,
> which drives us to the worst of all implementations.
>
> Joe
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss
>