Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sun, 29 December 2019 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 E089D1200E7 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
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 ZC1kLvLbq1Pc for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B1F1200CE for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:24:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.57.14]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xBT1OFd3006739 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:24:25 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1577582668; x=1577669068; i=@elandsys.com; bh=hDghpy+skfgWd5iGaabYX4zuoODvrF4V37fO7NGSUKI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:References; b=gvx4vEYi751MmjYfDzQaFBqMWnt/aUElyFOOb8z9Z455DksBHZPxBMX0Qlf9GvF27 347LqEER7Xd6VYdQmVwts9oPB6t35cA/w+s5H83cQ4Tb4cwBRYwQZl66vTZ/bosG2B bDMQanF9YI+35Rly+zEh2U4etNHb9KU3TQWwEMf8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20191228155853.07efc238@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 17:19:29 -0800
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <f13e1588-35e0-2493-93d2-add3480bb207@cs.tcd.ie> <1127343564.5806.1577112317584@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <ebcca2be-6839-8f43-d74f-0e863e32cd2d@cs.tcd.ie> <2068147434.6516.1577178675917@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <6.2.5.6.2.20191227130815.120fc690@elandnews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/ZLs2G9kpatqIdhM14MvE8MrsEXw>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] possible new IAB programme on Internet resilience
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 01:24:33 -0000

Hi Andrew,
At 10:57 AM 28-12-2019, Andrew Campling wrote:
>To clarify, I am not advocating that the IAB or IETF addresses 
>policy considerations, quite the reverse: I believe that policy 
>considerations would be better addressed elsewhere and that the 
>technical requirements arising from these are subsequently addressed 
>by the IETF and other bodies as appropriate.  The present situation, 
>where the IETF maintains that it does not address policy 
>considerations but, lacking guidance from a properly constituted and 
>qualified body, nevertheless makes technical decisions that are 
>based on inferred policy positions is unsatisfactory.

Thank you for the clarification.

There are non-technical considerations for some IAB decisions.  There 
was, for example, a statement about to free flow of information and 
jurisdiction, and stakeholders.  One of the points in that statement 
is that, in some cases, policy or business expertise is 
necessary.  The free flow of information was a topic of discussion in 
the IGF.  It might be difficult to gain agreement on whether that 
topic is related to the proposed IAB programme.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy