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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Fri, 27 December 2019 21:27 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 9C2B61200E0 for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:27:59 -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 SR9S8P_ZxaTV for <architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54C91200DB for <architecture-discuss@iab.org>; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.115.142]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id xBRLRebL007463 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:27:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1577482073; x=1577568473; i=@elandsys.com; bh=ay5PjzcHbMUIljIM1SM9WTTjYeH7uO5PI1JXFJ2Sufg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qjm+XNkRme63jnZmhGMQR2BHM6BwqMEsIZb4EJhjRTHXZyZK8+FZUdeFRF0vuBW05 zVz4IL3Ts6uQHiq90sTNGCFMGfZOWBHpvBVwIunOOwSeqpCgDjImKnzfhTl3l0uJwr cLx9gtTDlPjEw23jDc4/orbxIMDk/cwS6MdcTmR0=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20191227130815.120fc690@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:26:41 -0800
To: Andrew Campling <andrew.campling@419.consulting>, architecture-discuss@iab.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <LO2P265MB05733E4BD5A72EDEF96D3DE2C2290@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP2 65.PROD.OUTLOOK.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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/Zx2vDdCg0xM56KOKBxVYboBAUZU>
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: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 21:28:00 -0000

Hi Andrew,
At 03:24 AM 24-12-2019, Andrew Campling wrote:
>Noting the above exchange, I wonder whether a wider discussion needs 
>to take place about resilience and related topics like 
>centralisation and consolidation.  To do this properly it really 
>needs the involvement of a much more diverse set of stakeholders and 
>really needs to address both policy and technical considerations as 
>just doing the latter in isolation will not really get to the core 
>issues.  I think that a debate led by a body like the IGF but with 
>input when appropriate on technical considerations by the IAB/IETF 
>would be a much more useful exercise than something focused purely 
>within the IAB/IETF.

Does the IAB/IETF have a good record of addressing policy considerations?

It would be good to consider the objective(s) before getting into who 
needs to be involved.  Would writing an IAB statement help to attain 
the objective?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy